Why faith is an impossible argument

[Jack the Bodiless]

And we have already pointed out that there is nothing remotely "fradulent" about the Dawkins "biomorphs" and "methinks it is like a weasel" examples, as they were never intended to demonstrate anything more profound than the efficacy of a selection mechanism (albeit an intelligent one, in this case) on the raw material provided by random mutations.

Thus, these unfounded accusations are only two examples of the frauds perpetuated in the name of religion.

[Lincoln]

Like I said, he should be called an intelligent design advocate. Even you admit that his "selection mechanism" was an intelligent one. So why would anyone use him to disbelieve in an intelligent designer if he uses intelligent design to prove his own case!?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Except that he obviously ISN'T an "intelligent design advocate", so why call him one?

And are you still demanding that he provides a computer simulation not designed by an intelligent being? Or are you saying that DEATH (the prime selection mechanism in nature) requires intelligence? Creatures can't die unless intelligently commanded to?

[Lincoln]

"Except that he obviously ISN'T an "intelligent design advocate", so why call him one?"

Because he is so good at it!

[Lincoln]

I have to go for a few days, so if anyone is interested in this discussion look up the thread by Albert Speer "Why would anyone want to be an atheist." I couldn't get the search function to work. See you all later...

[Sava]

I remember that Dawkins guy... what a loon! His logic was easier to disprove than Aquoinas's (spelling?).

[Rogan Josh]

As a matter of interest, do the atheists here believe that love exists? (And I don't mean lust!) If so, why?

[Nukapai]

Folks, folks - I think we have a bit of a confusion of terms here.

Faith in God is synonymous to belief in God. Both words, when used in context with religion have quite different definitions to when used in some other contexts. The arguments in this thread have looked at Faith in religious context, therefore the appropriate definitions are:
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
"often Faith/Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will."

(Source - Dictionary.com)

Faith, when used to mean 'trust' is a different matter and should not be confused with the above.

So, the arguments for "we all use faith more than we realise" as well as "we have to have faith in our fellow human beings, ergo, faith is logical" are not valid in the context being discussed here.

Trust is a word, which is appropriate when used in context: "I must place reasonable trust upon my boyfriend in that he will not cheat on me", or: "I trust that you will be here tomorrow".

The word assume would also be appropriate: "I assumed that the train would leave at the same time as every morning. How was I to know that a giant meteor had obliterated our entire town! Fancy that!"

The person who said that we all use much more faith than we realise, probably meant: "most of us have to assume a number of things on a daily basis, such as: the sun will rise and set as always and that the dinner will be on the table when I return from the office (if you're a bloke, that is )" - which is correct. If we did not base our lives on such daily assumptions our lives would be somewhat bizarre to say the least.

Now I also wish to contribute to the other portion of this thread which is looking at the concept of faith in God (or: concept of religious belief), using the word 'faith' in the correct context.

The following, are three sections of a wonderful document written by one Jeff Strayer (whom I do not know, whom I am not affiliated with and whose writings I have just had the good fortune to stumble upon).

Taken from: "ATHEISM, REASON, AND FAITH"
"There are two key philosophical points to keep in mind here: The first is Ockham’s razor, and
the second is that the burden of proving the existence of something for which there is either inadequate
or no evidence rests with the person who maintains the existence of the doubtful entity. Ockham’s
razor is a useful principle of reason which tells us to omit from a theory anything not strictly required to
explain what the theory concerns. If Darwinism or any scientific theory successfully explains what it
attempts to explain, then we need not and should not invoke any further hypothesis to explain what has
already been explained with fewer principles. For when we add another hypothesis to our theory, that
hypothesis itself stands in need of confirmation, and its relation to the phenomena which it is supposed
to explain has to be accounted for. Finally, it would have to be shown why a more complicated theory
is to be preferred to a simpler one which successfully treats the same objects of consideration. This
does not prove that the existence of a creator of the universe is incompatible with the world according
to science in general and to Darwin in particular. Although the nature of such a creator would be
subject to qualifications given the problem of evil, it could be that a supernatural being or beings
designed the universe to unfold and develop historically according to random processes, much as do
certain aleatoric compositions by the American composer John Cage. The point is that we need not,
and in fact cannot, logically infer that there is a single designer or that there are a number of designers
fond of chance behind the random order of nature.
On the second point of existential burden of proof, the assertion of God’s existence is on the
same logical footing as maintaining that an empirically undetectable rhinoceros is here in the room with
us. And by “empirically undetectable” I mean that the rhinoceros is invisible, odorless, emits no sound,
and has no properties which afford tactual, gustatory, or scientifically discernible evidence of its
existence. If I assert the existence of such a being for which there is and cannot be any evidence due to
the nature of the example being considered, then it is not up to you to disprove the existence of what I
have asserted, rather it is up to me to prove it."

--------------

"The moral argument for God’s existence is that, without God, there is no justification of
morality, and good behavior will not be rewarded and evil will not be punished. That without God
there is no reason for being moral is expressed concisely in Dostoevsky’s apothegm “If God does not
exist then everything is permitted.” Although I do not know how to argue ethically for what I take to be
correct moral behavior, such as respecting a person’s rights to freedom of thought and speech, and
against incorrect moral behavior, such as deliberate, unwarranted cruelty, it is clear that God’s
existence is not required as a source of value and will not adequately account for it. Thinkers from
Plato onward have recognized that the question arises of whether something is good or proper because
God has said it is, or God says that it is good and proper because it is good and proper. On the first
assumption, ethics is held hostage to God’s will and whim and is the ultimate form of subjective
relativism. Thus, since God answers to no one and everyone answers to God, and there are no
absolute moral laws, he or she could simply decide that what was moral is now immoral, and what was
immoral is now moral. But if God commands me to kill my son, can I really think that this is a good and
proper thing to do, or might I think that God has ordered me to do something which I can simply see to
be wrong in itself, the wrong to deliberately deprive another innocent human being of his life?"

--------------

"A theist who has reflected on the matter may agree that the evidence for God’s existence is
entirely inadequate, and may also agree that those philosophical arguments which have been adduced in
her favor are unconvincing, and yet continue to believe in God. Such a theist continues to believe in
God in spite of these deficiencies as a matter of faith. What does “faith” mean here? According to the
tenth edition of Mirriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary ‘faith,’ in the sense in which it is now
applicable to our discussion, means “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” Thus one’s
faith need not be limited to God but can include such things as undetectable rhinoceroses. This of
course is the most telling rational objection to faith, namely, that you can have faith in anything in which
you can make yourself believe, in spite of, or perhaps because of, all the evidence to the contrary.
Faith alone, apart from reason and evidence, is an impuissant and ineffectual means of getting at the
truth since, when one person’s faith conflicts with another’s, how do we decide between the claims
based on the divergent faiths? We cannot appeal to the evidence if either there is no evidence to
support either position, or the evidence equally supports either position, and where no rational argument
can settle the issue between competing positions based on faith, then faith in the truth of a position
advocated simply assumes the truth of that position. I find the fact of faith in the sense defined above to
be one of the odder things about humanity. Bertrand Russell was also astounded by it, and proposed
the following psychological law to account for the attitude of those who resort to faith when evidence
and reason are inadequate to support their belief: “Belief is inversely proportional to evidence, the less
the evidence the greater the belief.” This must mean that, when the evidence is entirely lacking, and so
completely unsupportive of the belief, the intensity of faith must approach infinity as a limit. People can
and do have faith in any number of things for which reason and evidence supporting their belief is either
lacking or insufficient, including such things as ghosts, astrology, telepathy, teleportation, and flying
saucers, in addition to the God or Gods of the world’s various religions. Such faith underlines my belief
that the most remarkable thing about rational man is his capacity for irrationality."

--------------
The full paper can be viewed here:
http://cafephilo.org/AtheismReasonFaith.pdf

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, do the atheists here believe that love exists? (And I don't mean lust!) If so, why?

Of course it does!

Why shouldn't it? It evidently serves an evolutionary purpose: the formation of the family unit, for mutual protection and the raising of children.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And are you still demanding that he provides a computer simulation not designed by an intelligent being?

What is wrong with asking for this? I could imagine this being done by some kind of iterative proceedure.

[Whaleboy]

Am inclined to agree on the personal level, however, it is as equally subjective as any other, including religious, point of view. As such, while I myself am not active religiously, I think people are entitled, and perfectly justified in having and exercising religious beliefs, as long as they dont hurt others.

As for the psychological causes of religion, I suspect it has something to do with the human desire to understand the world around them, and base their lives around some form of cosmology (the scientific form is somewhat alien to most people, due to its necessary complexity).

I also believe that people refuse to believe that "nothing is permanent", in the sense that everything rots, crumbles into nothingness, and that all humanity, all good, evil etc, will eventually end up as a thin soup of infra-red energy (or a primeval singularity). As such, they seek an alternative explanation, and the notion of the infinite after life is an attractive alternative to nothingness to many people.

Either that, or you get the phenomenon in todays society, of people refusing to think about higher issues, prefering to concentrate on their mundane little lives, which allows them not to be religious, based mainly on apathy. IMO, religion is preferable to that kind of conformist, drone-like ignorance.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by dejon
One of my favourite jokes: Solipsists of the world unite!

[Nukapai]

Originally posted by elijah
while I myself am not active religiously, I think people are entitled, and perfectly justified in having and exercising religious beliefs, as long as they dont hurt others.

I agree with the above statement.

I would be interested in where you draw the line of 'don't hurt others' though.

As a person extremely interested (and actively involved in) education, I would draw the line at certain States in US throwing out evolution theory from the classroom in exclusive favour of Christian creationism, or certain religions (including Christianity) already being historically responsible for quite a few deaths...but I don't want to go down to this discussion right now (because one could debate for weeks....).

IMO limiting the information to one theory over another when educating children is 'hurting'. IMO killing in the name of religion is 'hurting'. I realise that you did not qualify your statement further and I therefore cannot know what your personal 'line' might be (hence my question...)

As for the psychological causes of religion, I suspect it has something to do with the human desire to understand the world around them, and base their lives around some form of cosmology (the scientific form is somewhat alien to most people, due to its necessary complexity).

Oh, absolutely.

I also believe that people refuse to believe that "nothing is permanent", in the sense that everything rots, crumbles into nothingness, and that all humanity, all good, evil etc, will eventually end up as a thin soup of infra-red energy (or a primeval singularity). As such, they seek an alternative explanation, and the notion of the infinite after life is an attractive alternative to nothingness to many people.

Again, very true for many religious people - IMO especially true in cases where people 'find religion' later on in life (curiously close to their imminent death...). I would like to add, that this view of people 'needing' religion to explain the meaning of life with is not categoric, however, though it has been an extremely effective selling point for those wishing to 'control the masses' with religion.

Either that, or you get the phenomenon in todays society, of people refusing to think about higher issues, prefering to concentrate on their mundane little lives, which allows them not to be religious, based mainly on apathy. IMO, religion is preferable to that kind of conformist, drone-like ignorance.

THIS is the bit I absolutely totally DISAGREE with. You state this, based on what evidence? People who would describe themselves as religious/spiritual might also be in the 'drone-like' categories of people. In reverse, people who are not religious/spiritual may be anything BUT 'drone-like', actively involved in politics/world health/education/improvement of third world living conditions/helping the old lady next door whose pension doesn't go quite far enough/active in homeless issues....

There is such a thing as 'altruism'. There are such people as 'humanists' (who believe - heh, heh - in the power of human beings themselves, which, by the way, does not have to be in conflict with religious beliefs). OR you could just find that people who have chosen to live (versus commit suicide upon realising the 'pointlessnes' of all and the 'vastness' of space) have decided to pass the time in ways which they find meaningful (such as making creative contributions to present, and possibly future society...etc).

As a result of a long-winded philosophical debate on 'what's the point?' (in this context), one can usually derive that the point of life for individuals = seeking pleasure.

By pleasure, I don't mean corporal pleasure or pleasure in a sense that must in any way relate to 'corruption' (except of course for some people it does...).

Example: Teaching other people gives me pleasure. I find it a rewarding experience in itself. Therefore I teach.

Example: Giving to charity makes my friend feel good about herself, therefore it is a pleasurable activity. Therefore she gives to charity.

Example: Seeing his own handywork is a highly rewarding experience to that bloke who builds houses down the road. Therefore he builds houses.

...............well, this discusion could turn to an essay so I'd better stop. But do you see my point? In that -

Lack of religious belief does NOT = drones.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Sava
I remember that Dawkins guy... what a loon! His logic was easier to disprove than Aquoinas's (spelling?).

Aquinas'

The word has a final s, so showing a possession of Aquinas, just add the apostrophe.

[Edan]

Faith is never meant to be (or shouldn't be) an argument.

Originally posted by loinburger
Faith is illogical, but so what? You can't live life by logic alone. (Or maybe you could, but why would you want to?)

Maybe if you're a trekkie obsessed with Vulcans?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Sava
With the threat of eternal damnation, God isn't giving humanity free will to make a decision.

Then how come so many people don't make the "right" decision (whatever that decision may be, there certainly isn't 100% of humanity following that decision...)

Now, if the existence of god (and hell) coud be proven - in the sense that no one could doubt god's existence, then I could see there (probably) being no free will.

[Kuciwalker]

Faith is illogical, but so what? You can't live life by logic alone. (Or maybe you could, but why would you want to?)

You can, easily. I don't see anything wrong with it.

On a side note, logic is always right (even when predicting a proper course of action). Every instance of it producing an "incorrect" answer has been the result of one of three things: 1) the misidentification of the goal, 2) incorrect use of logic (i.e. I eat bagels, therefore I am President), or 3) incorrect or insufficient definition of the situation.

[GePap]

The dearth of non-monotheists is always a drag. Seeing these atheist-theist debates are annoying: there are other schools out there! What about the Hindus? Buddhists? why do we ignore them? What if the Buddhists are correct, and the rest of you all wrong?

I agree with Loin that we can;t live without faith, if only because there are some things we must take without question. After all, If someone or something I respect (for a great nuber of socially consturcted reasons) tells me "this is true", then I take that without question. Someone might argue that is logicv speaking, but as I said,t he reasons I turst the source are not logicaly constructed, but socially constructed. So there is a strong element of faith there.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not arguing against the existance of a single god, or any god; I'm saying that because there is no reason for me to hold one religion as true over any other I will hold none, and base my thoughts and opinions on empirical data.

After all, If someone or something I respect (for a great nuber of socially consturcted reasons) tells me "this is true", then I take that without question. Someone might argue that is logicv speaking, but as I said,t he reasons I turst the source are not logicaly constructed, but socially constructed.

In fact, you very well may be using logic there. If the person has been shown to be true in the past, or has credentials indicating a higher possibility of being correct, then it is the logical decision. If not based on some sort of evidence, however, then it is faith, and illogical. However, not everyone will have faith in the first place. I wouldn't.

[GePap]

But how can I really check the veracity of what i ma being told? lets say I hear on the news: earthquake in Algeirs. I know nobody from there, i can't possibly verify it myself. I assume the facts are right. Most of the facts I hear i could never actually verify myself, so there is ahuge amount that I take as given, ebcuase if I were to begin questioning it, all I end up is with decartes.

[Nukapai]

Originally posted by GePap
But how can I really check the veracity of what i ma being told? lets say I hear on the news: earthquake in Algeirs. I know nobody from there, i can't possibly verify it myself. I assume the facts are right. Most of the facts I hear i could never actually verify myself, so there is ahuge amount that I take as given, ebcuase if I were to begin questioning it, all I end up is with decartes.

Please read my post on the previous page re: use of terminology in right context

Faith in the context of this thread = religious belief.

Faith in context of (trust in something, assumption, belief in that x will happen because it has always happened or because it comes from trusted sources) = something outside of this debate (or should be).

[Zero]

Originally posted by GePap
But how can I really check the veracity of what i ma being told? lets say I hear on the news: earthquake in Algeirs. I know nobody from there, i can't possibly verify it myself. I assume the facts are right. Most of the facts I hear i could never actually verify myself, so there is ahuge amount that I take as given, ebcuase if I were to begin questioning it, all I end up is with decartes.

You could try to question whether your thinking or not, it you got it real bad.


The fact is everyone has faith in something. Someone before wrote an elaborate post on how trusting something is different from having faith. Isnt that the same thing? What is there to trust if the evidence are there to no require any trust to trust?

[Nukapai]

Originally posted by Zero


You could try to question whether your thinking or not, it you got it real bad.


The fact is everyone has faith in something. Someone before wrote an elaborate post on how trusting something is different from having faith. Isnt that the same thing? What is there to trust if the evidence are there to no require any trust to trust?

No, it's not the same thing. Check your dictionary

[GePap]

I will not use definitions being imposed unto me in this thread. i will stick with the definitoon given to me by dictionaries.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nukapai


No, it's not the same thing. Check your dictionary

run and sprint is defined in a different way too.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, Gepap is right that trust can be faith. However, trust in not always faith. Trust completely unsupported by evidence is faith. If it is supported by evidence, it is logic.

However, you trust the news because you have come to the conclusion that there is a higher probability that they are telling the truth than that they are not. There are logical means of arriving at this conclusion.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by skywalker
You can [life life by logic alone], easily. I don't see anything wrong with it.

You see nothing wrong with living your life in complete absence of emotions? Given the choice, you would never want to experience love, pain, humor, etc.?

Actually, Gepap is right that trust can be faith. However, trust in not always faith. Trust completely unsupported by evidence is faith. If it is supported by evidence, it is logic.

How much evidence is required for something to count as being logically supported?

[Kuciwalker]

Living by logic does not mean not feeling, or using, emotions. Emotions are such a fundamental part of the human brain that they are almost on the level of pure sensory perception... so if your goal is to feel certain emotions, the use of logic is most likely to achieve that goal. Whether or not the goal is logical is irrelevant. In fact, it doesn't even apply, because the (highest) goal is not challengable (it is subjective).

How much evidence is required for something to count as being logically supported?

More than to the contrary. Note that this cannot be directly measured, as the amount is along an unquantifiable continuum.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by skywalker
More than to the contrary. Note that this cannot be directly measured, as the amount is along an unquantifiable continuum.

So how do you determine whether something is logical or illogical, if it is impossible to quantify that which defines whether something is logical or illogical? Is it just an ad hoc labelling system?

[Kuciwalker]

You don't quantify. You go through a logic proof.

Now, the complexity of many things means you can't go through an entire formal proof (which is impossible), but instead go through a series of interacting theorems (none of which are explicit).

So, while logic is perfect, it is (usually) a PRACTICAL impossibility to apply pure logic.