Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

Dywyddyr said:
Go back and read the first post.
This thread is about religious faith. And that, as noted, is defined as belief (including trust/ confidence) without knowledge.
Click to expand...

This would be illumination, not faith.

Again and more clearly :
Faith is a concept, like infinity, and this type of concept do not exist in the real world.
There is an idea of infinity but no actual infinity.
There is an idea of faith but no actual faith.
Do anyone ever seen someone whos faith is 100% without knowledge ???
No... but yes if the knowledge we talk about is illumination, so no faith, religious or not, here.

Therefore we quantitize actual faith, saying per example that someone has a strong or weak faith.
What is this other concept that can be lowered (lowering faith is a nonsense) ? This is the actual faith.
So the possible formula to express this clearly : Actual faith = a * faith + (1-a) * knowledge
(a is the ratio of the use of faith or knowledge)

But faith = 1 (it is a constant, not like knowledge)
So
Actual faith = a + (1-a) * knowledge

Therefore 2 extrem cases (intermediate cases exists too because a is between 0 and 1) :
If a=0 : I dont depend on faith
=> Actual faith = Knowledge

If a=1 : I only depend on faith (so actual faith = faith)
=> Actual faith = 1

Simple enought to understand i suppose.

Other possible formulas :
Actual faith = a * (1 - knowledge) + knowledge
Actual faith = a * (Ignorance) + knowledge
 
Dicart said:
This would be illumination, not faith.
Click to expand...
Really?
Then why the word faith?
Again and more clearly :
Faith is a concept, like infinity, and this type of concept do not exist in the real world.
Click to expand...
Drivel.
Do anyone ever seen someone whos faith is 100% without knowledge ???
Click to expand...
Anyone/ everyone who believes in a god. NO ONE has actual knowledge of god (any god). Yet may people believe regardless. Many people have faith that he/ she/ it exists.
Therefore we quantitize actual faith, saying per example that someone has a strong or weak faith.
What is this other concept that can be lowered (lowering faith is a nonsense) ? This is the actual faith.
So the possible formula to express this clearly : Actual faith = a * faith + (1-a) * knowledge
(a is the ratio of the use of faith or knowledge)

But faith = 1 (it is a constant, not like knowledge)
So
Actual faith = a + (1-a) * knowledge

Therefore 2 extrem cases (intermediate cases exists too because a is between 0 and 1) :
If a=0 : I dont depend on faith
=> Actual faith = Knowledge

If a=1 : I only depend on faith (so actual faith = faith)
=> Actual faith = 1

Simple enought to understand i suppose.

Other possible formulas :
Actual faith = a * (1 - knowledge) + knowledge
Actual faith = a * (Ignorance) + knowledge
Click to expand...
This is, in its entirety, utter nonsense.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Yes, i just did the (obvious) demonstration.

Then why the word faith?
Click to expand...

Because you can have more or less faith, but not 100% (in my example a=1 is the limit never atteined)
100%=1

Drivel.
Click to expand...

Why ? Whats your agument (is your believe based on knowledge or faith this would be wrong) ?

Other example :
Pain.
Pain is a concept.
Saying i have pain doesent say anything about actual pain.
You must define the intensity a
Actual pain = a * pain

Anyone/ everyone who believes in a god. NO ONE has actual knowledge of god (any god). Yet may people believe regardless. Many people have faith that he/ she/ it exists.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what i said.
Formula explain it more accuratly, if Knowlege = 100% faith=0%
100% faith = Illumination so 0% Knowledge

This is, in its entirety, utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

No, this is rational thinking.
If yout think something is wrong, say what is wrong and explain why.
 
Dicart said:
Pain is a concept.
Click to expand...
Ummm no. PAIN is a sense(ation)

A UNPLEASANT sensation

When I trained as a Registered Nurse I learnt that pain severity was measured in *dols. If memory serves me correctly a 1cm pad was applied to the back of the hand and heated. The person was required to indicate when they felt a change in temperature (1 dol)

There is a well known pain relief medication which uses the Greek word for pain - pónos - and the measurement - dol

PANADOL

:)

*Edit sold to dols - piss poor proof read :(
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
Ummm no. PAIN is a sense(ation)
Click to expand...

Big confusion here.
No, pain is the word used to represent the concept pain and the concept pain (here in the case of pain, this is not a generality) is relevant to "something" (never really known, you know the platos cave...) correlated with a set of properties and atributes that can be observed (So we can speak about with intersubjectivity)
So per example and not only, pain has the atribute to be part of the category sensation.

When I trained as a Registered Nurse I learnt that pain severity was measured in sold. If memory serves me correctly a 1cm pad was applied to the back of the hand and heated. The person was required to indicate when they felt a change in temperature (1 dol)
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what i say, and i used this qualia to show that even we can not mesure something precisely, we can talk
about his intensity.
So for faith, there are many intensities of faith we can not mesure but we can speak of the intensity.
 
James R said:
Most believers in God, when asked, will say that their belief is based in part on certain types of evidence that they trust, and in part on faith. The weight given to evidence and faith varies from person to person, but with a little pushing the honest believer will usually admit that God's existence cannot be established on the basis of evidence alone, and that faith is always involved.

I would like to explore in this thread the question of whether faith is a good way to arrive at reliable knowledge about the nature of the world and the things in it. In particular, I would like to discuss whether it is reasonable to believe in God because one has faith that God exists.

Let me start by getting one potential point of contention out of the way. People say things like "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow", or "I have faith that my mother loves me". This is not the kind of faith I want to discuss here, and it is important that we have that clear at the start. Our "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on past experience - that the sun has risen every day of our lives without fail, and there's no reason to suppose it won't continue to do so in the near future. And your "faith" that your mother loves you (if you have it) is based on your lived experience, too. Probably your mother cared for you as a child. You probably keep in touch regularly. Your mother does things for you without always expecting you to do things in return. And so on and so forth.

So, this "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is actually evidence-based, and so is the "faith" that your mother loves you. This is different from the kind of the religious faith I want to discuss here.

Religious faith might be defined, approximately, as "belief even in the absence of good evidence". The term "leap of faith" is commonly used in this context. Perhaps as a believer you went to church, read the bible (or other religious text), and concluded that there's some evidence that God exists. But the evidence alone doesn't quite get you across the line. So, you make a final "leap of faith" - a choice to believe in God regardless of the lack of definite proof that God exists. This is the kind of faith that I'm talking about.

My question is this: is this religious kind of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence - a good way to go about obtaining reliable knowledge about the world and what is in it?

To start the ball rolling, I would like to ask the believers in God who are here the following questions:

1. Do you admit that your belief in God is based, at least in part, on faith?
2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith? Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?
3. Apart from your belief in God, is there any other area of your life where you rely on faith to make decisions or choices, or to believe in something? Please give an example or two if your answer is "yes". And keep in mind my definition of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence.

I look forward to your responses.
Click to expand...


By around 1990 I began to pray and ask for wisdom with rather extreme chutzpah......
I even was EXTREMELY RUDE to Messiah Yeshua - Jesus and to the Ancient of Days the Father...
Thirty one years later and I honestly feel that ALL of my question from back in those days have been answered......
and ninety five or more percent of the answers really surprised me and were not what I could have guessed back in 1988 or 1989!

I did have at least some faith....
and I feel that my prayers for Wisdom... ( partly so that I would not go through life and end up giving really awful advice as I had so
often seen done by some pastors..... on some occasions..... would be an error that I would make some progress in avoiding)! I also learned to qualify my assertions and be far less dogmatic even when I get into a topic that I have investigated thoroughly.
 
Dennis Tate said:
By around 1990 I began to pray and ask for wisdom with rather extreme chutzpah......
I even was EXTREMELY RUDE to Messiah Yeshua - Jesus and to the Ancient of Days the Father...
Thirty one years later and I honestly feel that ALL of my question from back in those days have been answered......
and ninety five or more percent of the answers really surprised me and were not what I could have guessed back in 1988 or 1989!

I did have at least some faith....
and I feel that my prayers for Wisdom... ( partly so that I would not go through life and end up giving really awful advice as I had so
often seen done by some pastors..... on some occasions..... would be an error that I would make some progress in avoiding)! I also learned to qualify my assertions and be far less dogmatic even when I get into a topic that I have investigated thoroughly.
Click to expand...
None of that answers the questions I asked in my opening post. I think you're posting in the wrong thread, Dennis.

Have you read this thread?
 
James R said:
None of that answers the questions I asked in my opening post. I think you're posting in the wrong thread, Dennis.

Have you read this thread?
Click to expand...

James R said:
I would like to explore in this thread the question of whether faith is a good way to arrive at reliable knowledge about the nature of the world and the things in it. In particular, I would like to discuss whether it is reasonable to believe in God because one has faith that God exists.
Click to expand...

Faith isn't about knowledge. It's about belief in what you don't actually know.

Ever try to assemble some purchased product without reading the instructions?
 
Mr. G said:
Faith isn't about knowledge. It's about belief in what you don't actually know.
Click to expand...
Often it's about trying to circumvent actual knowledge - e.g. creationism is an attempt to put faith before evidence.
Ever try to assemble some purchased product without reading the instructions?
Click to expand...
Always. :cool: The microwave stand. The tabletop barbecue, The floor lamp. To this day, I've never seen the instructions for any of them.
 
James R said:
Most believers in God, when asked, will say that their belief is based in part on certain types of evidence that they trust, and in part on faith. The weight given to evidence and faith varies from person to person, but with a little pushing the honest believer will usually admit that God's existence cannot be established on the basis of evidence alone, and that faith is always involved.

I would like to explore in this thread the question of whether faith is a good way to arrive at reliable knowledge about the nature of the world and the things in it. In particular, I would like to discuss whether it is reasonable to believe in God because one has faith that God exists.

Let me start by getting one potential point of contention out of the way. People say things like "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow", or "I have faith that my mother loves me". This is not the kind of faith I want to discuss here, and it is important that we have that clear at the start. Our "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on past experience - that the sun has risen every day of our lives without fail, and there's no reason to suppose it won't continue to do so in the near future. And your "faith" that your mother loves you (if you have it) is based on your lived experience, too. Probably your mother cared for you as a child. You probably keep in touch regularly. Your mother does things for you without always expecting you to do things in return. And so on and so forth.

So, this "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is actually evidence-based, and so is the "faith" that your mother loves you. This is different from the kind of the religious faith I want to discuss here.

Religious faith might be defined, approximately, as "belief even in the absence of good evidence". The term "leap of faith" is commonly used in this context. Perhaps as a believer you went to church, read the bible (or other religious text), and concluded that there's some evidence that God exists. But the evidence alone doesn't quite get you across the line. So, you make a final "leap of faith" - a choice to believe in God regardless of the lack of definite proof that God exists. This is the kind of faith that I'm talking about.

My question is this: is this religious kind of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence - a good way to go about obtaining reliable knowledge about the world and what is in it?

To start the ball rolling, I would like to ask the believers in God who are here the following questions:

1. Do you admit that your belief in God is based, at least in part, on faith?
2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith? Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?
3. Apart from your belief in God, is there any other area of your life where you rely on faith to make decisions or choices, or to believe in something? Please give an example or two if your answer is "yes". And keep in mind my definition of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence.

I look forward to your responses.
Click to expand...

Is there ever an absence of evidence? Whether objective or subjective, if not for some evidence, I'd suggest the term faith far removed from the concept itself. Faith, isn't something a person just decides to exercise. At least not without a reason.

Besides, the definition of the term itself simply suggests having a trust in something, which if applied under contrary circumstances would seem pointless in terms of validity. There are times when a choice to feel secure in a situation isn't there, so a person is then forced to utilize the faith principle, if only to find some sense of security, or hope.

In this scenario it makes sense, at least your definition of, that faith is sometimes required to find relief, to keep a hope and live through it, that things will get better, or a sense that we'll make it through.

Difficulty is something many of us find to be a necessitating element requiring faith, if we choose this route as opposed to just submitting defeat.

Knowledge is no less an aspect of faith than uncertainty, which is why I asked or alluded to the idea that faith is always present, active, and part of life.
 
sideshowbob said:
I would say the opposite; Faith IS something that a person just decides to exercise, not just in the absence of evidence but often in denial of the evidence.
Click to expand...


I might agree when hope is fading, but even then faith comes quite natural to us. I guess once strained beyond our limit, a choosing is required to continue. So ... I won't disagree.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Your point is?
Click to expand...

Obverse: You're joking.

Reverse: But what is yours? If your post at #812↑ seems to have missed the context of the thread, #814↑ only reinforces the perception.

The "faith" you seem to be referring to is a far more general concept than what this thread discusses; it's not entirely irrelevant, but it's up to you to connect the two—nobody else can do that part for you.

†​

Also: "I might agree when hope is fading, but even then faith comes quite natural to us." You managed to get part of that backwards unto itself. You said faith "isn't something someone just decides to exercise"; Bob would say the opposite. Yet the part where you won't disagree, "when hope is fading", is one of the least reliable exercises of will there is. In terms of the thread in general, you reinforce that faith is not a reliable path to knowledge; in the more particular consideration, the circumstance in which you "might agree" that faith is something someone just decides to exercise—i.e., as a conscious act of will—is also an occasion when that decision is most vulnerable to circumstantial coercion.

That is, you might agree they "just decide" at a time when they actually perceive a reason.

Do we really need to analyze the implication of arbitrariness about the word "just"? Because the time you would concede they might arbitrarily decide to exercise faith also coincides with circumstances that might actually give them a reason.

Or, did you mean something else?
 
Tiassa said:
Obverse: You're joking.

Reverse: But what is yours? If your post at #812↑ seems to have missed the context of the thread, #814↑ only reinforces the perception.

The "faith" you seem to be referring to is a far more general concept than what this thread discusses; it's not entirely irrelevant, but it's up to you to connect the two—nobody else can do that part for you.

†​

Also: "I might agree when hope is fading, but even then faith comes quite natural to us." You managed to get part of that backwards unto itself. You said faith "isn't something someone just decides to exercise"; Bob would say the opposite. Yet the part where you won't disagree, "when hope is fading", is one of the least reliable exercises of will there is. In terms of the thread in general, you reinforce that faith is not a reliable path to knowledge; in the more particular consideration, the circumstance in which you "might agree" that faith is something someone just decides to exercise—i.e., as a conscious act of will—is also an occasion when that decision is most vulnerable to circumstantial coercion.

That is, you might agree they "just decide" at a time when they actually perceive a reason.

Do we really need to analyze the implication of arbitrariness about the word "just"? Because the time you would concede they might arbitrarily decide to exercise faith also coincides with circumstances that might actually give them a reason.

Or, did you mean something else?
Click to expand...

Faith is an aspect of everyday life ... Always, but I can agree that people choose to acknowledge living through it ... Or not. Particularly in dire straits we find the concept coming to surface. That's the point, but then I like sturdy chairs.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Faith is an aspect of everyday life ... Always, but I can agree that people choose to acknowledge living through it ... Or not.
Click to expand...

And while that is a fine subject, it also reads like a change of subject; and it does stand out that you still don't seem to understand, or perhaps acknowledge, the difference between what you're talking about and the thread. If the connection or relationship between these two aspects of faith is part of what you're talking about, again, nobody else can do that part for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top