Religion

DetlefK

(16,670 posts) Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:23 AM Mar 2016

What makes "belief" and "faith" so special? [View all]

I once posted a thread, asking how "faith" as a tool of revelation works. How do you start out? What step comes next? How do you finally find an answer to your problem?
I got one usefull reply, and it was "It's not about faith giving answers, it's about the journey."

So, I have a new question.

Why this insistence that "faith" and "belief" are the proper ways to handle religious questions?
If you as a human are confronted with a problem that is governed by the laws of nature and mathematics, a method of revelation based on doubt (e.g. the scientific method) is capable of delivering a solution. A method of revelation based on faith however is incompatible to such problems, because the underlying philosophical assumptions of faith are incompatible with the mathematical laws of statistics. (I can deliver a philosophical proof for that, if you want to see it.)

The question:
As faith is unable to solve problems you encounter in physical everyday-life, where does the assumption come from that faith is the only acceptable approach to handling questions about the spiritual side of life???

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What makes "belief" and "faith" so special? [View all] DetlefK Mar 2016 OP

Because people need it skepticscott Mar 2016 #1

I know you are right, but I will never, ever understand it. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #2

You believe without evidence. rug Mar 2016 #4

I don't. I never have, even as a child. That's why I will never get it. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #39

"I know it exists, but, gut level, I just don't get it." rug Mar 2016 #42

Gut level, I don't get believing without evidence. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #43

There's nothing gratuitous about it. rug Mar 2016 #44

I stand corrected. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #46

No I don't. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #55

Post your evidence that faith is an emotional weakness. rug Mar 2016 #3

It'll follow right behind skepticscott Mar 2016 #5

I see. Once again - nothing. rug Mar 2016 #8

As I said, you first skepticscott Mar 2016 #11

You can say it ten times. It's still your claim. rug Mar 2016 #19

I'm going to follow your example, ruggie skepticscott Mar 2016 #23

You've declared you have nothing. rug Mar 2016 #30

I've shown that you have no more than me skepticscott Mar 2016 #40

You've shown nothing. rug Mar 2016 #41

Hey, could you have your god call me and vouch for you? Human101948 Mar 2016 #51

Call yourself. rug Mar 2016 #52

Phone is disconnected... Human101948 Mar 2016 #53

Because it's an emotional state that puts you into danger: DetlefK Mar 2016 #7

Faith says: "I'm convinced it worked out. No need to check." IMO This is a straw man. I've known jonno99 Mar 2016 #12

4 problems DetlefK Mar 2016 #45

Bam. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #56

Bam? Are you claiming scientists are paragons of emotional health? rug Apr 2016 #59

Correlation/causation. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #61

That link does not demonstrate what you think it does. rug Apr 2016 #65

Oh you want to play that game. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #67

The last refuge of the defenders of religious privilege is, as you note... trotsky Mar 2016 #6

Faith seems to be the perfect way to answer questions about the 'spiritual' side of life. mr blur Mar 2016 #9

Here's a try. Festivito Mar 2016 #10

Thank you for a lovely demonstration of equivocation. trotsky Mar 2016 #14

What equivocation and where? Or, did you mean: elaboration, in which case, thank you. Festivito Mar 2016 #20

I used the word I intended to. trotsky Mar 2016 #21

Ah. There is still no what equivocates or where it is, requested in my last post. eom Festivito Mar 2016 #25

Oh, I thought you would figure that out from the excerpt given. trotsky Mar 2016 #27

Used twice, 1. defined and 2. used in a sentence. That cannot be equivocal use. Festivito Mar 2016 #32

Yes, it is equivocation. trotsky Mar 2016 #33

Ah-ha! You're saying the OP use of faith differs from my definition and usage -- just not how. Festivito Mar 2016 #36

The simplest definition of equivocation: trotsky Mar 2016 #47

It seems to me that the discussion is moot - unless there is a god/creator. jonno99 Mar 2016 #13

By that argument, if it's reasonable to believe in any one god skepticscott Mar 2016 #15

It seems to me that the question stands on it's own: is it reasonable to jonno99 Mar 2016 #17

Because as we all know, that's not the summation of religious belief. trotsky Mar 2016 #22

Please see my below reponse to SS...nt jonno99 Mar 2016 #29

Except that it isn't the same question skepticscott Mar 2016 #24

It is the same basic question: jonno99 Mar 2016 #28

There is a huge problem with your reasoning: trotsky Mar 2016 #31

That is a curious response. I've simply asked two questions. jonno99 Mar 2016 #34

No, I'm pointing out your line of reasoning is flawed. trotsky Mar 2016 #35

"there is no way to do so" Of course - unless the creator chooses to jonno99 Mar 2016 #37

Tell you what - when you can get some agreement on that, trotsky Mar 2016 #38

Well, a few thoughts come to mind: jonno99 Mar 2016 #48

One step back first: trotsky Mar 2016 #49

All great questions - all great points. But it merely brings us back to my first statement: jonno99 Mar 2016 #50

But your first statement is where it goes off the rails. trotsky Apr 2016 #54

In answer to your questions: jonno99 Apr 2016 #57

Hold on there. trotsky Apr 2016 #58

Any response yet? n/t trotsky Apr 2016 #60

My appologies for bouncing. jonno99 Apr 2016 #62

I thought that was answered. trotsky Apr 2016 #63

So, just to be clear, is the following scenario the one to which your are referring? jonno99 Apr 2016 #64

May I see the statistical analysis you've done... trotsky Apr 2016 #66

Which numbers would you like? jonno99 Apr 2016 #68

No, let's really be honest. trotsky Apr 2016 #69

response: jonno99 Apr 2016 #70

Alright, I'll bite. trotsky Apr 2016 #71

Please, now it seems you're being disingenuous. jonno99 Apr 2016 #72

I'm completely serious. trotsky Apr 2016 #73

I'm completely serious as well. It's not difficult however, to see where your headed - jonno99 Apr 2016 #74

Hawking is not making the point you think he is. trotsky Apr 2016 #75

Yes, we can all see what Hawkings is discussing, and yes, in Hawkings' "ponderings" jonno99 Apr 2016 #79

First off, his name is Hawking. Not "Hawkings." trotsky Apr 2016 #81

Faith is belief in the impossible. Iggo Mar 2016 #16

I don't solve my everyday problems with my faith. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #18

"Faith" is a misnomer and is incorrectly used nichomachus Mar 2016 #26

I think that faith is a very variable term. It doesn't have to mean faith in God (or a god) per se. LisaM Apr 2016 #76

So, faith is just a feeling??? DetlefK Apr 2016 #77

I didn't say that - I think it's a belief in some ultimate concept of good LisaM Apr 2016 #78

But that just moves the problem of legitimacy to the word "belief". DetlefK Apr 2016 #82

Why should we care? LisaM Apr 2016 #84

The more I discuss with believers, the more religion confuses me. DetlefK Apr 2016 #87

What makes "belief" and "faith" so special? In-group and out-group markers Albertoo Apr 2016 #80

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that "belief" and "faith" havespecial definitions for believers. DetlefK Apr 2016 #83

This right here..."in-group / out-group" dynamics Fix The Stupid Apr 2016 #85

Not so much a fantastic scam as an unfortunate heirloom Albertoo Apr 2016 #86