Does faith imply doubt?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2014, 02:50 PM
Does faith imply doubt?
I have this notion that faith means believing without proof. Well so does belief, but you get my point.

If you do have proof (a dirty word, but let's disregard that for the moment) of (insert religion here) are real, you have knowledge in stead of faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lunda's post
25-06-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
(25-06-2014 02:50 PM)Lunda Wrote:  I have this notion that faith means believing without proof. Well so does belief, but you get my point.

If you do have proof (a dirty word, but let's disregard that for the moment) of (insert religion here) are real, you have knowledge in stead of faith.

I agree. But I have been shot down for this, too. Faith implies not knowing. It's a leap of faith Smile

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
25-06-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
In my language, there's not much difference between faith and belief. It's a homonym. So I always went by the rule, that faith is a religious crap and belief is a non-religious crap.

The skeptic, taxonomist and activist Aron Ra said, that faith is the most intellectually dishonest position that is possible to have. It certainly is both a lack of doubt and lack of knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Luminon's post
25-06-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
Quote:It certainly is both a lack of doubt and lack of knowledge.

I understand Aron Ra's point, but I'm not so sure he is right. I mean why would these people try so hard to refute him Aron Ra, that is (I'm using him as an example because he's the one being quoted), if they did not think he had a point? I'm quite certain They aren't trying to convert him (good luck with that), they are speaking to the audience, which means they are afraid he has some good points. Which again means they they have some doubt, though they are not likely to admit it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lunda's post
25-06-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
(25-06-2014 04:20 PM)Lunda Wrote:  I understand Aron Ra's point, but I'm not so sure he is right. I mean why would these people try so hard to refute him Aron Ra, that is (I'm using him as an example because he's the one being quoted), if they did not think he had a point? I'm quite certain They aren't trying to convert him (good luck with that), they are speaking to the audience, which means they are afraid he has some good points. Which again means they they have some doubt, though they are not likely to admit it.
Laugh out load Very true! (that second sentence is actually mine, not Aron's, but you've got a point there) I heard Ken Ham refused to debate him, after he debated Ray Comfort. They know internally that there is no reason to choose Christian faith over any other, or even to have it at all. No reason other than parental indoctrination.

Which is why they try to drive the discussion up, into details.
I found myself writing a Christian, you know this theology stuff isn't normal. It doesn't concern me and it doesn't even make sense unless you interpret it real hard. I have some obscure stuff myself, but I'm not telling it to you, I know it would make no sense to you. So why are you telling me? Why don't you care that I don't care? Is it because your parents did not care about what you care about?
That's what I wrote to him.
Do you think it would help to keep the debate at its simplest? No good reason to have faith, no good reason to choose one over any other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 01:56 AM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
(25-06-2014 04:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-06-2014 04:20 PM)Lunda Wrote:  I understand Aron Ra's point, but I'm not so sure he is right. I mean why would these people try so hard to refute him Aron Ra, that is (I'm using him as an example because he's the one being quoted), if they did not think he had a point? I'm quite certain They aren't trying to convert him (good luck with that), they are speaking to the audience, which means they are afraid he has some good points. Which again means they they have some doubt, though they are not likely to admit it.
Laugh out load Very true! (that second sentence is actually mine, not Aron's, but you've got a point there) I heard Ken Ham refused to debate him, after he debated Ray Comfort. They know internally that there is no reason to choose Christian faith over any other, or even to have it at all. No reason other than parental indoctrination.

Which is why they try to drive the discussion up, into details.
I found myself writing a Christian, you know this theology stuff isn't normal. It doesn't concern me and it doesn't even make sense unless you interpret it real hard. I have some obscure stuff myself, but I'm not telling it to you, I know it would make no sense to you. So why are you telling me? Why don't you care that I don't care? Is it because your parents did not care about what you care about?
That's what I wrote to him.
Do you think it would help to keep the debate at its simplest? No good reason to have faith, no good reason to choose one over any other.

To believe involves contemplation, consideration, hope, ideas, and other abstract considerations. Believing cannot be weighed up, observed tested, and analysed scientifically. It cannot be known in this way. But then a pragmatic scientism (knowing) is essentially limited to our evolved finite state of being, which is seen as being the ultimate state of knowledge. Other cosmic considerations may be relevant, despite the fact that such are not amenable to our scientific method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 02:21 AM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
Faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence (that the believer knows of). This doesn't imply doubt; however, it does infer - by definition - lack of knowledge (though it also infers certainty, which is why faith is not a virtue, but a fatal flaw).

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes One Above All's post
02-08-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
(02-08-2014 02:21 AM)One Above All Wrote:  Faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence (that the believer knows of). This doesn't imply doubt; however, it does infer - by definition - lack of knowledge (though it also infers certainty, which is why faith is not a virtue, but a fatal flaw).

Why fatal? An hypothesis may initially hold fantastic considerations to later be seen as sound.
Will science 100.....1000 years down the track hold the same epistemology?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
(02-08-2014 04:22 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Why fatal? An hypothesis may initially hold fantastic considerations to later be seen as sound.
Will science 100.....1000 years down the track hold the same epistemology?

Scientific hypotheses are based on evidence, or they're not scientific. The Greeks, for example, were the first to think about atoms because they thought there must be an end to how much you can split something in half. They already knew that infinities and infinitesimals were not possible. Sure, they were wrong about atoms being indivisible, but the basic idea remained: there's a limit to how many times you can split something in half until you can't any more; either because, if you did, it wouldn't be that something, or simply because you've reached an elementary particle.
As for whether or not science's epistemology will last... I think it will last as long as science does. The scientific method is (currently) the best method for learning anything about the Universe and all things in it. I doubt a better method can be conceived of. Of course, I could be wrong.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Does faith imply doubt?
(02-08-2014 04:37 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(02-08-2014 04:22 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Why fatal? An hypothesis may initially hold fantastic considerations to later be seen as sound.
Will science 100.....1000 years down the track hold the same epistemology?

Scientific hypotheses are based on evidence, or they're not scientific. The Greeks, for example, were the first to think about atoms because they thought there must be an end to how much you can split something in half. They already knew that infinities and infinitesimals were not possible. Sure, they were wrong about atoms being indivisible, but the basic idea remained: there's a limit to how many times you can split something in half until you can't any more; either because, if you did, it wouldn't be that something, or simply because you've reached an elementary particle.
As for whether or not science's epistemology will last... I think it will last as long as science does. The scientific method is (currently) the best method for learning anything about the Universe and all things in it. I doubt a better method can be conceived of. Of course, I could be wrong.
I am not saying the scientific method is inept in dealing with an evolutionary sustained knowledge. Good ethical science is good for the secular world.
However; if science becomes too grandiose in terms of human needs sociologically, things could turn very nasty. Some subjective pondering is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of how science may be employed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: