Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[The ClayTaurus]

Due to the length of post we've reached, and my own time constraints, I'm going to need to subdivide my response. Feel free to either wait for all parts and respond to the whole, or respond in part to each. I, however, will withold any responses to further response until I've concluded this.. response. And stuff. I apologize if this is inconvenient for you.

Apologies. Mixed synonyms. Allow me to reword for clarity:<blockquote>Some people are unable to function without a dose of heroin either. I really do not wish to take faith to the "opiate of the masses" conclusion if better conclusions can be made that defy the notions that human beings can't function within reality without perceptual barriers between them and reality--that human beings are incapable of interacting effectively with reality withour it being sugar-coated.</blockquote>Failing to deal with reality is NOT subjective. Not at all. The ultimate indication of failure to deal with reality is death. Step out into speeding traffic and die. Jump from a bridge and die. This not to dismiss lesser penalties, but those penalties have objective effects, even if our judgment of those effects is subjective. Reality is objective. What we do in reality is real, and therefore it too is objective--what we percieve may not be objective, and our motives may not be objective, but the reality of our perceptions, and our motives are objective--they are real things that can be compared to other parts of reality, confirmed and validated by reality. They don't have to be, and IMO, ought not be, judged by the caprices derived out of fear of our imperfections. Those imperfections are real too, and the limitations they impose upon us can be taken into account.

I apologize. Lack of clarity on my part as well. (We can just keep taking turns being unclear: tag you're it)Of course actual reality is not subjective. But as we agree, the perception of reality is. And to judge someone dealing with reality or not requires application of perception, which is subjective. But this is now completely unrelated as you've revised your original statement.

I believe you have much more faith in the human race than I when it comes to the potential for dealing with reality. Perhaps personal experiences have lead us to a difference of opinion? I'm not yet convinced that everyone is capable of living sugar-coating-free. (Besides, sugar coating tastes so good!)

You cannot just dismiss what I said, and replace it with what you'd wished I'd said, and then tell me I can't have my conclusion.

Sure I can! I'll do it again with your last sentence:!)

You're my hero.

Well, hey thanks! Go ahead: you try it!

My relationships (the close ones) are not based upon the value of what is unknown to me in other people--rather, it is based upon what I know. The character, qualities, and values that I can verify to exist, have verified exist, and continue to verify exist are the sole critera. I demand that those who love and care for me do so for me on the same terms. This is not to devalue humanity, but it is to say that humanity is a rather common commodity amongst humans--that humanity includes frailties and imperfections, strength and virtues certainly, but the certainty of those are NOT reasons, or the measures, by which my relationships are established, and the "unknown" where the potentiality those frailties and imperfections of those I love might harm me is cetainly not considered. It is the exceptional difference, verifiable and verified constantly, that I weigh. I just don't judge others, or the nature of my relationship to them, on unknown variables.

I think your practical definition of faith may be much more limited than I. You and I both employ the same set of criteria in our relationships. I'm rather shocked by your insistance that faith plays no role in connecting verification of the past, current, and future situations. In my eyes, to be truly faith free, you would need to approach each day as though you had just met the person, as as soon as you begin to predict future behaivor based on past I submit you are employing what I would consider faith. Faith that is constantly being confirmed and re-implements. Disposable faith, I suppose, although disposable may be a more choice of word.

It's imminently practical and practicable.

We'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll chalk it up to you having more faith in humanity than I.

X=X; fire burns; the unexpected is unexpected; and the unexplained is unexplained. Completely sensible, and not projecting. But I am enjoying the image of possessing the super-hero power of aknowledging that reality is pretty much just the way it seems to be.

You could get a Reality-Man avatar and have epic battles with RWA's red, white, and blue-clad superhero.

Good. Then how about this: Is it preferrable to apply impeccably, one's rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities?

Preferrable is an excellent choice of word. We are in agreement.

The question asked is "Does confirmation, in evidence or valid logic, of the fidelity of your GF/wife destroy the faith in fidelity?

I believe your answer was "yes."

Then, does such confirmation in her fidelity diminish the value of her fidelity; does it diminish the value of the relationship? I sincerely hoped not.

I believe your answer was "yes" again, but I believe you misunderstood the questions, so please revise if necessary.

If validation results in affirmation of faith, than no, if anything the value of the relationship is increased. However, if validation results in the opposite, than absolutely the value of the relationship is diminished. Is not your relationship less meaningful after it's been discovered that your trust has been abused?

I predict that you will reassert that fidelity cannot be validated by evidence (and I'll disagree) but it's beside the point, which is: Is it the faith that makes the relationship valid, or does the relationship validate the faith?

The relationship ultimately will validate the faith, but I contend that success of the relationship is highly dependent on the responsible application of faith.

Does the faith make the relationship real and valuable, or is the verifiable elements of the relationship, and your relationship's value to you, and most importantly, the value you hold in the relationship and the verifiable elements of the relationship that validate the parts that you don't know about but believe are true--those parts that you placed the term "faith" in?

I'm not sure faith makes anything real. But it certainly can make things manageable, practical, and reasonable. All subjective terms, of course.

I can assume, for now, that the drive for Truth is equal with or without, but I'll ask: When one "knows" without requiring evidence or logic to validate said "knowledge", at what point, and upon what criteria, does one establish that evidence or valid logic can refute OR confirm such knowledge?

I suppose that would be subjective based on the individual. On an absolute level? Conclusive evidence, as discussed prior.

So you say. I'll wait for your resposes to the above.

Also, I'm not speaking of the "things" that require faith--separate issue, and maybe we'll discuss our differences about validating fidelity when we get to it. First I'd like to nail down validating "faith."

Fair enough. But allow me to take a parting pot shot toward validation of fidelity before we bury it for another day. Without constant monitoring of an individual, affirmation of fidelity is impossible. It's quite simple. If a car is parked outside your house, and you go to sleep and in the morning the car is in EXACTLY the same condition outside your house, that doesn't conclusively validate that it did not move while you were sleeping.

Nonsense. I can question the evidence. If the validity of the evidence is in contention, then room exists for faith (if, of course evidence can invalidate faith).

But if the evidence is completely ignored because of conviction in faith alone, my contention is that is misuse (and dangerous misuse at that) of faith.

Do you wish to alter our definition of faith to exclude denial of evidence? If so, I'd like to be sure of the grounds for this alteration.

No no. I like a good, all-encompassing definition. Getting too specific limits things unfairly.


As I said, more as I find time later.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Then let us exclude simple conjecture of the future from the discussion. Asserting faith in their ability to win, is separate from assertions that they will win IMO. Yet, such assertions, like believing you'll win the lottery, very much confirm reality's independence from what we simply believe (regardless of evidence, valid logic, or the lack thereof) reality to be. IOW, we cannot just simply "believe" real things into existence.

I suppose I might agree. Simply asserting "The Pistons will win" requires no faith. It is merely a statement such as "the sky is polka dotted" or "Spandex is flattering on old people." However, if I believe my assertion to be true, that then is where the faith lies. Do you call this simply belief? Perhaps your definition of what belief encompasses overlaps what my definition of faith encompasses.

Ok. At this point, due much to the limitations of cut&paste and the peculiar quote function of this board, I sense there may be some confusion now--allow me to recreate my questions and paraphrase your responses for your review and adjustment:<blockquote>Can evidence or valid logic validate faith? The ClayTaurus: Yes.

And I would agree.

Conclusive evidence or logic. That is, evidence/logic which without a doubt proves the validity of the previously held faith.

Once validated by evidence or valid logic, does such conviction in the reality of something remain faith?The ClayTaurus: Yes, but it's a crappy sort of faith.

I would say no, that now having validation in evidence or valid logic, what was faith is no longer faith--but I would agree that denial of evidence or valid logic that validates the certainty in the of the reality of some thing constitutes a crappy sort of faith--but faith none-the-less.

My answer was intended to reflect yours; that is, acceptance of evidence and logic renders faith meaningless and most likely non-existant. Denial of evidence constitutes crappy faith, but faith nonetheless.

If evidence or valid logic does not vaildate faith, does that diminish the value of the conviction?The ClayTaurus: No.

And I would disagree, but this is about where I think the exchange gets fuzzy, for the above mentioned reasons, as you get into the term "conclusive."

And it's still fuzzy. Perhaps I'm just having trouble with the generality. Perhaps apply your question to a situation; I may better follow you that way.

So, I will await your reply.

Wait no longer!

If evidence and valid logic do NOT validate faith, is it the denial of evidence and valid logic that does?The ClayTaurus: Yes, but it's a crappy kind if faith as I said before.

And I agree, as before.

Groovy.

If so, does that diminish the value of the conviction?The ClayTaurus: Yes.

And I agree.</blockquote>

Double groovy.

Don't let me be unfair to you--fix this where it needs it.

Done.

I like this answer! What constitutes responsible application of "faith."

I'm going to argue that responsible application of "faith" is aknowledging that "faith" is a substitute for "I don't know"; and when irresponsibly applied, "faith" falsely connotes "knowledge" as fact, where there is no such knowledge.

That sounds reasonable to me. I would also add that irresponsible application of faith also lies in the level of faith you place. That is, responsible application of faith is trusting your spouse deeply after years of being together. Placing the same level of faith on a random individal in a 7-11 is not. As an example, lets say the clerk at the 7-11 accuses your spouse or random guy of stealing a candy bar. Your spouse has never stolen anything, and in fact has actually run a small business and understands what its like to be stolen from. Random guy you don't know. It is responsible application of faith to believe your spouse is innocent, and irresponsible application of faith to believe random guy is innocent. I might also argue it's irresponsible application to believe random guy is guilty, but that would also depend more on the details of the situation. I'm hoping this makes sense.

Ok, let's do it then!

LOki and The ClayTaurus are two handsome gentlemen!

Nonsense. We can talk about faces, despite each being individual. We can still intelligently discuss all the individual parameters of individual faces without denying the individuality of each face. We can discuss the function of eyes, without limiting what a person looks at, what books he reads, what things he finds beautiful.

True.

We can discuss the function of taste without limiting what a person individually eats, or finds, as a unique individual especially toothsome. Likewise, I could ask "Where in those humans, does that requirement [for food] reside? Is that place where [food] resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with [food]?"

True.

I suspect you wouldn't claim that individual tastes for hotdogs or donuts restricts our discussion for the human need for food. I suspect that the restrictions a diabetic, or cardiac disease victim abides by would not be an impediment to our discussion.

But I do not find your comparison adequate, as all humans require food for existence. I have already granted to you that not all humans require faith for existence.

I say we can discuss the function of faith without demanding individual knowledge of the subject of a person's faith. So I'll ask again:<blockquote>Where in those humans [who need, as you assert, faith], does that requirement for faith reside? Is that place where faith resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with faith?</blockquote>

And my answer then would be no, it is not necessarily a function of being human, as every human does not require faith. At least faith on the level we're discussing. But I would also stipulate that does not therefore imply that the place where faith resides is NOT necessarily a function of being human. And so we're back to my original point, which is: it depends. For some, faith is a part of being human. For others, faith is NOT a part of being human. And for those who faith is a part, there is a wide array of levels of which faith is a part.

Right now, all I can assert for sure is that at it's best, faith is harmless. I'm feeling rather shakey about *that* though.

You wouldn't agree that faith can bring closure, bring healing? Or do you feel it's better for a child, for example, to not believe their recently deceased dog is in doggy heaven and instead just accept that the dog is dead. The dog is gone. Perhaps you and I differ on the appropriateness of coping mechanisms?

 

[Eightball]

Despite the fact that some seem abhorrent to bible quotes as a means of supporting points, I will still venture into this territory, and gladly accept the flak.

In fact, it's funny how the bible seems to be taboo as a source of information with some. It's actually laughted-at as though it's a realm that borders on fantasy/fiction, and is totally devoid of contribution.

Actually, I think the scripture should be a great source for defining faith......as so much of Judeau/Christian belief is basically, and soundly in my opinion based on faith.

There is a famous quote in the bible that basicaly says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".

Now, here's my "take" on this passage/quote. Faith is not a "blind" stab-in-the-dark act of the human will, but is based on interpretation of data via the senses.....In this quote, it is based on hearing(one of the human senses) the scripture/Word. Now faith isn't anything unless it is also followed by action of some sort. For Faith to be Faith it must initiate a response as a result of accepting/believing something that is received by the senses. A response, can be the act of trusting in something where once there was no trust. It can also initiate the act or will to not trust something too, depending on what this bit of scripture of information has communicated to the mind via the senses(hearing, touch, smell, eyesight.....).
.....
Small bit of constructive advise:

There are some unnamed folks here that are posting mammoth long responses, and using vernacular that may impress college Lit. Profs, but isn't really conducive to a layman's way of communicating/interpretting ideas/facts/theorys etc.

Suggestion: Could those folks please keep it simple, and shorter, and not submit 300 word + responses/replies?

I have a feeling that I'm not in the minority if I say that I really don't want to read these responses that are longer than the U.S. Constitution. At first they are impressive, but after awhile I just start skipping over them looking for shorter, and more compact and concise replies.
......
No, I'm not a moderator......far from it......

When a couple folks keep submitting these mammoth replies......I notice that the number of replies from others start to drop off. It just becomes a conversation between two or three who enjoy spitting out long keyboard responses.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Despite the fact that some seem abhorrent to bible quotes as a means of supporting points, I will still venture into this territory, and gladly accept the flak.

In fact, it's funny how the bible seems to be taboo as a source of information with some. It's actually laughted-at as though it's a realm that borders on fantasy/fiction, and is totally devoid of contribution.

Actually, I think the scripture should be a great source for defining faith......as so much of Judeau/Christian belief is basically, and soundly in my opinion based on faith.

There is a famous quote in the bible that basicaly says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".

Now, here's my "take" on this passage/quote. Faith is not a "blind" stab-in-the-dark act of the human will, but is based on interpretation of data via the senses.....In this quote, it is based on hearing(one of the human senses) the scripture/Word. Now faith isn't anything unless it is also followed by action of some sort. For Faith to be Faith it must initiate a response as a result of accepting/believing something that is received by the senses. A response, can be the act of trusting in something where once there was no trust. It can also initiate the act or will to not trust something too, depending on what this bit of scripture of information has communicated to the mind via the senses(hearing, touch, smell, eyesight.....).
.....
Small bit of constructive advise:

There are some unnamed folks here that are posting mammoth long responses, and using vernacular that may impress college Lit. Profs, but isn't really conducive to a layman's way of communicating/interpretting ideas/facts/theorys etc.

Suggestion: Could those folks please keep it simple, and shorter, and not submit 300 word + responses/replies?

I have a feeling that I'm not in the minority if I say that I really don't want to read these responses that are longer than the U.S. Constitution. At first they are impressive, but after awhile I just start skipping over them looking for shorter, and more compact and concise replies.
......
No, I'm not a moderator......far from it......

When a couple folks keep submitting these mammoth replies......I notice that the number of replies from others start to drop off. It just becomes a conversation between two or three who enjoy spitting out long keyboard responses.

That's what people do when they know they're wrong. They try to get extra credit with more words.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Small bit of constructive advise:

There are some unnamed folks here that are posting mammoth long responses, and using vernacular that may impress college Lit. Profs, but isn't really conducive to a layman's way of communicating/interpretting ideas/facts/theorys etc.

Suggestion: Could those folks please keep it simple, and shorter, and not submit 300 word + responses/replies?

I have a feeling that I'm not in the minority if I say that I really don't want to read these responses that are longer than the U.S. Constitution. At first they are impressive, but after awhile I just start skipping over them looking for shorter, and more compact and concise replies.
......
No, I'm not a moderator......far from it......

When a couple folks keep submitting these mammoth replies......I notice that the number of replies from others start to drop off. It just becomes a conversation between two or three who enjoy spitting out long keyboard responses.

Rather insulting, in my opinion, to think that we're doing this merely to try and impress each other with bigger words, but I suppose it could be taken to PM if everyone feels like we're trying to be elitist. You, of course, are more than welcome to start a new thread of similar nature with more concise posts. I'll even keep my responses in your new thread to 10 words or less, for your convenience. Let me know if you need this paraphrased.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Rather insulting, in my opinion, to think that we're doing this merely to try and impress each other with bigger words, but I suppose it could be taken to PM if everyone feels like we're trying to be elitist. You, of course, are more than welcome to start a new thread of similar nature with more concise posts. I'll even keep my responses in your new thread to 10 words or less, for your convenience. Let me know if you need this paraphrased.

Don't you see, clay. Everyone notices you'r nearly content-free diarrhea of the brain.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Don't you see, clay. Everyone notices you'r nearly content-free diarrhea of the brain.

Don't you see, RWA. I could care less what everyone else sees or thinks of what I'm posting. I'm not here to please your tubby ass.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't you see, RWA. I could care less what everyone else sees or thinks of what I'm posting. I'm not here to please your tubby ass.

Your like every frat boy I ever knew, with a retarded and unwarranted sense of grandeur.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Your like every frat boy I ever knew, with a retarded and unwarranted sense of grandeur.

Oooh now we've reached the frat boy insults. Scathing. Keep searching for something that will actually hurt my feelings. You're bound to find it eventually.

 

[5stringJeff]

Oooh now we've reached the frat boy insults. Scathing. Keep searching for something that will actually hurt my feelings. You're bound to find it eventually.

Your avatar is STUPID! And you're an UGLYHEAD!!!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Your avatar is STUPID! And you're an UGLYHEAD!!!

Come on, don't take away his livelihood!

What will RWA do without the social interraction being an asshole on this board affords him? We wouldn't want him to go postal, or anything.



And, in closing:

Yo momma.

 

[LOki]

I believe you have much more faith in the human race than I when it comes to the potential for dealing with reality. Perhaps personal experiences have lead us to a difference of opinion? I'm not yet convinced that everyone is capable of living sugar-coating-free. (Besides, sugar coating tastes so good!)

I certainly survived living a sugar-coated life, but my life became much more managable and rewarding once I embraced rationality. Given the subjective potential in the nature of perception, it is my opinion that functioning in reality is challenging enough without placing barriers (intellectual, chemical, or otherwise) between my perceptions and reality. Such is the nature of my personal experience.

My relationships (the close ones) are not based upon the value of what is unknown to me in other people--rather, it is based upon what I know. The character, qualities, and values that I can verify to exist, have verified exist, and continue to verify exist are the sole critera. I demand that those who love and care for me do so for me on the same terms. This is not to devalue humanity, but it is to say that humanity is a rather common commodity amongst humans--that humanity includes frailties and imperfections, strength and virtues certainly, but the certainty of those are NOT reasons, or the measures, by which my relationships are established, and the "unknown" where the potentiality those frailties and imperfections of those I love might harm me is cetainly not considered. It is the exceptional difference, verifiable and verified constantly, that I weigh. I just don't judge others, or the nature of my relationship to them, on unknown variables.

I think your practical definition of faith may be much more limited than I. You and I both employ the same set of criteria in our relationships. I'm rather shocked by your insistance that faith plays no role in connecting verification of the past, current, and future situations. In my eyes, to be truly faith free, you would need to approach each day as though you had just met the person, as as soon as you begin to predict future behaivor based on past I submit you are employing what I would consider faith. Faith that is constantly being confirmed and re-implements. Disposable faith, I suppose, although disposable may be a more choice of word.

I wouldn't assert basing one's trust upon past experience to be faith--I would assert rather that trusting beyond the evidence of past experience is faith. My trust is not founded upon such faith. As I asserted earlier, my beliefs in the validity of things (including my relationships) are not based in the lack of evidence or valid logic that confirms them, but rather only upon that evidence or valid logic that does confirm them. Again, no faith involved.

We'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll chalk it up to you having more faith in humanity than I.

HAHAHA! I have no faith in humanity.

Is it preferrable to apply impeccably, one's rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities?

Preferrable is an excellent choice of word. We are in agreement.

Is this preference based upon evidence or valid logic, or is it rather, necessarily accepted on faith?

If validation results in affirmation of faith, than no, if anything the value of the relationship is increased. However, if validation results in the opposite, than absolutely the value of the relationship is diminished. Is not your relationship less meaningful after it's been discovered that your trust has been abused?

Check these conclusions:<blockquote>First Conclusion--So, evidence and/or valid logic can confirm whether or not one's faith was correctly placed. If evidence and/or valid logic confirms faith was poorly placed in a relationship (in this instance) then such vidence and/or valid logic both removes the element of faith from the relationship AND serves to diminish the value of the relationship. Correct?</blockquote>If this is correct, is the value of your knowledge confirmed in evidence and/or valid logic greater than the loss of value in the relationship?

First I'll say the conclusion is correct, and I also assert the the gain in knowledge, although painful (in the case provided) certainly, is more valuable than the loss of value in the relationship.<blockquote>Second conclusion--If evidence and/or valid logic can confirm whether or not one's faith was correctly placed, is it not more sensible to simply hold beliefs based on evidence and/or valid logic without the intermediary step of faith? If so, does that not demonstrate that faith is entirely superfulous?</blockquote>I, of course, am asserting "yes" to both.

I'm not sure faith makes anything real. But it certainly can make things manageable, practical, and reasonable. All subjective terms, of course.

I am certain that faith makes nothing at all real except that conviction of certainty in the reality of that which is the subject of the faith in question. I think the managablity, practicality, and reasonabilty of which you speak of are necessarily illusionary to one degree or another--to the extent they are illusionary, I submit, they act for unmanagability, impracticality, and irrationality. None of which I consider to be beneficial.

I suppose I might agree. Simply asserting "The Pistons will win" requires no faith. It is merely a statement such as "the sky is polka dotted" or "Spandex is flattering on old people." However, if I believe my assertion to be true, that then is where the faith lies. Do you call this simply belief? Perhaps your definition of what belief encompasses overlaps what my definition of faith encompasses.

This reminds me of no1tovote4 wishing for terminology that distinguishes faith from conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Perhaps it is unfair to just call it "belief." Perhaps distinguishing beliefs further is useful, despite my previous argument against it.

We could let belief be:<blockquote>BELIEF:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing."</blockquote>We can keep<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>And we can add to our terminology<blockquote>?????????:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>Suggestions?

Regardless, I think with our current terminology, faith is included in belief, and if your prediction is based upon evidence or valid logic then that prediction cannot be based in faith.

My answer was intended to reflect yours; that is, acceptance of evidence and logic renders faith meaningless and most likely non-existant. Denial of evidence constitutes crappy faith, but faith nonetheless.

Cool. We are reaching an accord.

If evidence or valid logic does not vaildate faith, does that diminish the value of the conviction?The ClayTaurus: No.

And I would disagree, but this is about where I think the exchange gets fuzzy, for the above mentioned reasons, as you get into the term "conclusive."

And it's still fuzzy. Perhaps I'm just having trouble with the generality. Perhaps apply your question to a situation; I may better follow you that way.

Let me put it to you this way:<blockquote>Consider holding upon faith that the sky is blue. The evidence points to a colorless sky that appears blue because of selective wavelength absorbtion/transmission.

Does this evidence that the sky is colorless, rather than blue, diminish the value of the conviction that the sky is blue?</blockquote>As I asserted earlier, I say it does. I predict you do too.

That sounds reasonable to me. I would also add that irresponsible application of faith also lies in the level of faith you place. That is, responsible application of faith is trusting your spouse deeply after years of being together. Placing the same level of faith on a random individal in a 7-11 is not. As an example, lets say the clerk at the 7-11 accuses your spouse or random guy of stealing a candy bar. Your spouse has never stolen anything, and in fact has actually run a small business and understands what its like to be stolen from. Random guy you don't know. It is responsible application of faith to believe your spouse is innocent, and irresponsible application of faith to believe random guy is innocent. I might also argue it's irresponsible application to believe random guy is guilty, but that would also depend more on the details of the situation. I'm hoping this makes sense.

Your logic follows from your premise, but as you know, I'll argue the resposibility of applying faith at all.

But I do not find your comparison adequate, as all humans require food for existence. I have already granted to you that not all humans require faith for existence.

Then I must conclude that you agree with me that faith is not necessary to the condition of being human.

The need for faith is not derived from the natural needs of being human, but it is derived elsewhere.

And my answer then would be no, it is not necessarily a function of being human, as every human does not require faith. At least faith on the level we're discussing.

Here you reaffirm our agreement, correct?

But I would also stipulate that does not therefore imply that the place where faith resides is NOT necessarily a function of being human.

But you certainly are! Don't give up here yet!

And so we're back to my original point, which is: it depends. For some, faith is a part of being human. For others, faith is NOT a part of being human. And for those who faith is a part, there is a wide array of levels of which faith is a part.

Some humans need a cheeseburger, others don't, the reqirement for a chesseburger--specifically a cheeseburger--is not a human requirement, but rather an individual requirement derived from sources other than that condition of being human. Faith satisifies a human requirement, but of itself is not one.

You wouldn't agree that faith can bring closure, bring healing?

I do, but I also agree that cotton candy can satisfy hunger.

Or do you feel it's better for a child, for example, to not believe their recently deceased dog is in doggy heaven and instead just accept that the dog is dead. The dog is gone.

I think it is of imminently greater benefit to a child that they realize that the dog is gone, and that they accept that fact. If they wish to believe in doggy heaven, I cannot positively assert it doesn't exist, but I see little value to them in pushing the proposition upon them--regardless of how well it works to stop the water works.

Perhaps you and I differ on the appropriateness of coping mechanisms?

Let's not judge each other just yet.

 

[LOki]

Despite the fact that some seem abhorrent to bible quotes as a means of supporting points, I will still venture into this territory, and gladly accept the flak.

In fact, it's funny how the bible seems to be taboo as a source of information with some. It's actually laughted-at as though it's a realm that borders on fantasy/fiction, and is totally devoid of contribution.

You of course, are not talking about me.

The implication you make above not withstanding, nothing changes yet the fact that your offerings thus far have been circular, self contradictory, and question begging.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but it's just that I see no point in fixing your argument for you. Ok?

Actually, I think the scripture should be a great source for defining faith......as so much of Judeau/Christian belief is basically, and soundly in my opinion based on faith.

There is a famous quote in the bible that basicaly says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".

Now, here's my "take" on this passage/quote. Faith is not a "blind" stab-in-the-dark act of the human will, but is based on interpretation of data via the senses.....In this quote, it is based on hearing(one of the human senses) the scripture/Word. Now faith isn't anything unless it is also followed by action of some sort. For Faith to be Faith it must initiate a response as a result of accepting/believing something that is received by the senses. A response, can be the act of trusting in something where once there was no trust. It can also initiate the act or will to not trust something too, depending on what this bit of scripture of information has communicated to the mind via the senses(hearing, touch, smell, eyesight.....).

Nice. There seems to be some agreement to this already made.

Small bit of constructive advise:

There are some unnamed folks here that are posting mammoth long responses, and using vernacular that may impress college Lit. Profs, but isn't really conducive to a layman's way of communicating/interpretting ideas/facts/theorys etc.

Suggestion: Could those folks please keep it simple, and shorter, and not submit 300 word + responses/replies?

I have a feeling that I'm not in the minority if I say that I really don't want to read these responses that are longer than the U.S. Constitution. At first they are impressive, but after awhile I just start skipping over them looking for shorter, and more compact and concise replies.

Taken constructively.

As this user of multisyllabic words has already explained to you, the point is not to impress, but rather to be clear. To precisely convey meaning, so that such conveyance is meaningful. It is not incumbent upon me to motivate the "layman" to understand anything. Rather, if such "laymen" have so little inclination to learn words, upon what rationale should I consider them inclined to "communicating/interpretting ideas/facts/theorys etc."?

Secondly, considering the topic, which has been bandied about for centuries by better minds than ours, you should not be surprised that the discussion of it should be longer and more intellectually challenging than a GAP commercial.

This, of course is not to say that you should not skip to those posts less challenging of your vocabulary, and more accomodating of your attention span.

No, I'm not a moderator......far from it......

When a couple folks keep submitting these mammoth replies......I notice that the number of replies from others start to drop off. It just becomes a conversation between two or three who enjoy spitting out long keyboard responses.

Or perhaps there's a point beyond just "spitting out long keyboard responses". A point you missed because you just don't have what it takes in you to read, comprehend, and contribute to a conversation that is trying to do proper justice to the topic.

That's what people do when they know they're wrong. They try to get extra credit with more words.

HAHAHA! People who know they're wrong use short statements that facts can't be derived from, provide zero support for their assertions, and rely on logical fallacies to make their point.

 

[Eightball]

You of course, are not talking about me.

The implication you make above not withstanding, nothing changes yet the fact that your offerings thus far have been circular, self contradictory, and question begging.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but it's just that I see no point in fixing your argument for you. Ok?

Nice. There seems to be some agreement to this already made.

Taken constructively.

As this user of multisyllabic words has already explained to you, the point is not to impress, but rather to be clear. To precisely convey meaning, so that such conveyance is meaningful. It is not incumbent upon me to motivate the "layman" to understand anything. Rather, if such "laymen" have so little inclination to learn words, upon what rationale should I consider them inclined to "communicating/interpretting ideas/facts/theorys etc."?

Secondly, considering the topic, which has been bandied about for centuries by better minds than ours, you should not be surprised that the discussion of it should be longer and more intellectually challenging than a GAP commercial.

This, of course is not to say that you should not skip to those posts less challenging of your vocabulary, and more accomodating of your attention span.

Or perhaps there's a point beyond just "spitting out long keyboard responses". A point you missed because you just don't have what it takes in you to read, comprehend, and contribute to a conversation that is trying to do proper justice to the topic.

HAHAHA! People who know they're wrong use short statements that facts can't be derived from, provide zero support for their assertions, and rely on logical fallacies to make their point.

"Why Is There Air?".....Bill Cosby....... Constructive? Impressed?:huh:

 

[ErikViking]

You of course, are not talking about me.

Now that "me" thing was pretty cool.

About length of the text: In the late 19th and early 20ieth century the swedish school system shortened the length of school book text to make it easier for not so bright students to get through the text. But studies showed that it was acctually easier for students to read a well elaborated and rich text to learn from it.

About the posting in this link: I have to say I have trouble getting through it. And you are one of those who use unfamiliar words to me. And even if I think faith is nothing more than reasoned-up imagination I like to read what you and the others posts.

 

[Eightball]

Erik Viking:

Although American born, my grandparents on both sides are Swedish born, and came through Ellis Island. I'm 100% Swedish blood, but American born. In fact one of my grandpa's was named Erick. Seems also that we had a lot of Saloon owners on both sides of the family too.

I ended up marrying a young lady 31 years ago that was of Norwegian blood, but also American born.

Are you Swedish, Norwegian or ?
.....
My mom's father(from Sweden) used to have such arguments with my father when he came to visit us years ago. He was a staunch Socialist, and my father, although a staunch Roosevelt Democrat(WW2), couldn't see eye-to-eye.

I think nowadays, my grandfather's strong Socialist views would be very mainstream with the current American Democratic party.
......
My apologies for going off-topic.
........

 

[ErikViking]

Erik Viking:

Although American born, my grandparents on both sides are Swedish born, and came through Ellis Island. I'm 100% Swedish blood, but American born. In fact one of my grandpa's was named Erick. Seems also that we had a lot of Saloon owners on both sides of the family too.

I ended up marrying a young lady 31 years ago that was of Norwegian blood, but also American born.

Are you Swedish, Norwegian or ?
.....
My mom's father(from Sweden) used to have such arguments with my father when he came to visit us years ago. He was a staunch Socialist, and my father, although a staunch Roosevelt Democrat(WW2), couldn't see eye-to-eye.

I think nowadays, my grandfather's strong Socialist views would be very mainstream with the current American Democratic party.
......
My apologies for going off-topic.
........

I am from Sweden!
My father-in-law is such a socialist too. He is very disappointed over the state of the nation and thinks Sweden can't hardly be called a true socialist state anymore. Not compared to how it was 30 years ago, at least.

I think Sweden is moving to a general right, but do you mean that the American Democratic party has moved left?

My apologies too for going off-topic.

 

[Eightball]

I am from Sweden!
My father-in-law is such a socialist too. He is very disappointed over the state of the nation and thinks Sweden can't hardly be called a true socialist state anymore. Not compared to how it was 30 years ago, at least.

I think Sweden is moving to a general right, but do you mean that the American Democratic party has moved left?

My apologies too for going off-topic.

Oh, yes indeed......the American Democratic party in my opinion, has strayed far from it's roots, and is very much leaning to the left.

I'm very conservative, but not necessarily Libertarian in philosophy. I draw the line when it comes to totally rejecting government intervention in society.

You probably observed from my posts in this particular topic, that I have strong Christian/biblical views.

I know that you have expressed that you have different views, but please don't let my system of belief stop you from chatting with me.

My Mom's mother(Celia Olson) was from Stockholm, and was a very devout Lutheran/Christian. I never knew that until years after her passing, when I came across my Grandma's bible. She had so many scripture verses underlined, and dates of birthdays of relatives in that book. She was married to my grandpa in San Francisco, California, just a few weeks before the famous April 1906 earthquake that destroyed the city. Grandpa was a logger in California. He logged the big Coastal Redwood Trees that are world famous for their girth, heighth and age. He also worked on the San Francisco Trolley Cars too. He did maintenance on them. Later they moved to the state of Washington up North and settled in Maple Valley, Washington. It was during the great American Depression, and their farm was 40 acres. It was a very hard life up there.
........
My Dad's Swedish parents settled originally in Salt Lake City, Utah. My Grandpa owned two saloons in Salt Lake, and was an Episcopalian, while my grandmother was a Mormon. Grandpa helped build the Mormon Tabernacle, even though he was Mormon. He also was at Promentory Point, Utah, when they drove the Golden spike celebrating the connecting of the East and West Rail roads across the United States. Later they moved out to Californa and settled in Venice, California.
......
Now that I've totally bored you and everyone else, I better not post any more off-topic stuff......

 

[ErikViking]

Oh, yes indeed......the American Democratic party in my opinion, has strayed far from it's roots, and is very much leaning to the left.

I wonder, since "we" are definitley moving right, what the difference will be in another 20 years...

You probably observed from my posts in this particular topic, that I have strong Christian/biblical views.

I know that you have expressed that you have different views, but please don't let my system of belief stop you from chatting with me.

If I had problems with that this would be the last messageboard in the world I'd ever visit! Most people here share your view and they are generally very skilled, insightful and rather agressive in their debate!

We've got to stop messing this thread up though.

 

[no1tovote4]

If it were true that short posts are better there would be no such thing as novels and textbooks would be pamphlets. Being precise in a conversation dealing with philosophical issues is important if it gets to a higher level.

Saying they are trying to earn extra credit with more words is a bit disingenuous. Saying that the only opinions that mean anything can fit on a bumpersticker is simply ridiculous.

Saying, "Faith is Important!" calling that the end Truth and declaring victory in a conversation of "Why is faith important!" isn't a win and it isn't even participating. You haven't answered the question.