FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Something in which we can ALL have faith!?!?





jeffryjon
This is something I'd really like to see. I'm restricting the question to human behaviour as individuals and in society, is there anything(s) on which we can all (humans) agree enough to hold faithful to it/them? Even better if we can make a list.

I'm not talking here about what I or you believe either unless we can put something forward that nobody would object to under certain circumstances - Just for the record - I haven't got an answer yet!!!

I've a feeling this thread will either be very long or very short, but it would be so nice to get at least one reliable answer.
watersoul
How about faith that all humans are imperfect and will always interpret each of their own 'truths' differently?
Bikerman
I very much doubt it if you mean 'faith' as in belief without evidence. Many atheists/humanists are very careful about adopting faith positions generally. That isn't to say that we don't have faith in anything, but I doubt it would be in the same things....
jeffryjon
Good point Watersoul and something I would support personally, but me thinks there would be disagreement from some - let's see!!!!

Chris, no I'm not talking about those kinds of things as that could obviously never be a matter where all could agree.

I'll reluctantly give example of the kinds of things, though don't want to restrict it as I've not yet managed to come up with a single one.

a) Never steal - obviously people would not ALL agree as even honest people may think of a situation where they believe it would be warranted.

b) Always be vibrantly happy and ............ (some guaranteed result) - again I could see there wouldn't be agreement from everyone.

I'm not expecting an answer to be easy or for it to require blind faith, just want to see of any of us can come up with just one thing about human behaviour on which we can all agree all of the time.
Bikerman
Ah..OK, you are talking about goals or ideals rather than beliefs, yes?

The Golden Rule is probably as close as you will get.....
LittleBlackKitten
How about FAITH in oneself?
watersoul
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
How about FAITH in oneself?

Excellent choice LBK, you may be aware of the topic where I describe my own such faith in myself.

But as the OP is searching for agreement with everyone about a shared 'faith' in humans, I struggle to see how faith in oneself can be absolute if perhaps someone also had faith in a higher power needed to help them out? - 'God will tell me the answer' instead of 'I'll use all my skills to find the answer' ?
For that reason I think we will still not find the elusive universal response.
Bikerman
I am certain that you are correct. Not everyone agrees that the Golden Rule is something to be desired and if we cannot agree on that basic and apparently obvious aim then I see no hope of arriving at a commonly shared/acceptible faith in anything.

As I said, I think the 'treat others as you would like them to treat you' ethic is about as close as we will get to a universal 'belief' or principle. It isn't truly universal but I think it would have very widespread support, and certainly more than any other I can think of.
Bluedoll
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only of how to solve the problem. But when I've finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

The greatest thing in this world is not so much where we are, but in which direction we are moving

If we can look beyond the Frihost forum board and its arguements and can respect the fact that each person is a human being with thoughts and feelings then we can also have faith that we value respect for ourselves.
jeffryjon
watersoul wrote:
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
How about FAITH in oneself?

Excellent choice LBK, you may be aware of the topic where I describe my own such faith in myself.

But as the OP is searching for agreement with everyone about a shared 'faith' in humans, I struggle to see how faith in oneself can be absolute if perhaps someone also had faith in a higher power needed to help them out? - 'God will tell me the answer' instead of 'I'll use all my skills to find the answer' ?
For that reason I think we will still not find the elusive universal response.


LBK this one does have potential if we follow it through. Whether someone believes/disbelieves in a higher power that helps them out should really have no bearing on your suggestion. Even believing in a higher power means you'd have to have faith in that faith and the faith in that faith would mean having a personal faith in oneself of that higher 'something'. So far at least, you have my attention.

I'm not currently sure that this is something in which we all currently do have faith, but let's see if we can develop it further into something we all can have faith.
deanhills
How about faith in having faith? We can't have enough of faith? It does not necessarily have to be faith in a God. It could be faith in self, or faith in a cause, or faith in humanity?
Bikerman
That depends on whether you think 'faith' is a good thing in general. I don't. We have a word for people who have very high levels of faith in general. We call them gullible. People with lots of faith are the people who respond to the scam emails, people who get conned and ripped-off constantly.
Scientists try to develop a sense of healthy skepticism* in their work and I think that is a much better goal to aim for than developing faith for the sake of it. Personally I don't particularly want my doctor to have faith in treatments - I want him to be skeptical until he/she sees the evidence. I don't want my elderly mother to have faith that the man at the door is who he says he is. I want her to be skeptical and check. I don't want my news reporters to have faith in what politicians say - I want them to have a healthy dose of skepticism and wait for actions. I don't want my nephew to have faith that he will pass his A levels. I want him to be confident that he will, because he knows he has done the work.


* That isn't the same as cynicism. by the way. A sceptic is one who says [i]'let me see some evidence for that claim before I accept it' ; a cynic is one who says 'it doesn't matter about the evidence, it won't work anyway'.[/i]
Bluedoll
Something that has always amazed me on the board is our constant desire to challenge ideas rather than go with a consensus approach, as in what jeffryjon was calling on in the op for something all could agree on.

I think there has been a general overall acceptance that ‘faith’ can only mean to believe in something without intelligent reasoning behind it in all situations but maybe there is another way to look faith.

Everything that inspires confidence can well be applied to faith as well. To acquire a strong faith requires a lot of work and exploration, in fact the same processes as a scientist would use. In the end, however confidence and faith are very different. Confidence is applied liberally when all things can be analyzed effectively but it is with those unknowns, the questions that can not be answered where only faith can deliver the goods. Sometimes, you just have to wing it for lack of a situation that inhibits the more logical approach.

I will use this example, maybe not the best one but lets use a bomb defuser. There is just no time and he needs to cut a wire. It is experience that defines his actions, not luck or blind faith but a general knowledge from all the others he has done. He knows designs, he understands procedure and although he can never be sure, he relies on faith to enable him to make a choice. Experience and training pays off and although he knows he could be mistaken, no action would result in calamity. Using his good faith is his only solution.

So, I would say a faith that we could all agree on would be the good council of others that have gone down the same road we now face. Some answers may not be there for us as an exact science but may we choose faith on experience?
Bikerman
As you say, the bomb expert does not rely on faith, he/she relies on experience - which is another way of saying he/she relies on evidence. I don't think the word 'faith' is either necessary or particularly apt in that example. He/she doesn't rely on faith to make the choice, he/she relies on evidence and hopes the choice is correct.

You cannot have training in God. You can have training in theology - how a particular religion defines God, but you cannot objectively rely on other's experience of God, unless you are willing to also rely on the experiences of those who believe in different God(s) or no Gods at all. Why, for example, would you rely on accounts of Jesus to support your faith in God? Why not Zeus or Ra or Brahmin? Are those experiences less valid?

Ultimately religious faith is without objective evidence. The bomb expert has plenty of objective evidence to rely on, but religious faith involves acceptance, not evidence.

I do agree, however, that the problem is with the definition of 'faith'. I define it as acceptance without or in spite of evidence. Others define it differently. I think my definition works for religious faith, though - you have said yourself that your faith cannot be shaken by counter-evidence I think....
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
That depends on whether you think 'faith' is a good thing in general. I don't. We have a word for people who have very high levels of faith in general. We call them gullible. People with lots of faith are the people who respond to the scam emails, people who get conned and ripped-off constantly.
Scientists try to develop a sense of healthy skepticism* in their work and I think that is a much better goal to aim for than developing faith for the sake of it. Personally I don't particularly want my doctor to have faith in treatments - I want him to be skeptical until he/she sees the evidence. I don't want my elderly mother to have faith that the man at the door is who he says he is. I want her to be skeptical and check. I don't want my news reporters to have faith in what politicians say - I want them to have a healthy dose of skepticism and wait for actions. I don't want my nephew to have faith that he will pass his A levels. I want him to be confident that he will, because he knows he has done the work.


* That isn't the same as cynicism. by the way. A sceptic is one who says [i]'let me see some evidence for that claim before I accept it' ; a cynic is one who says 'it doesn't matter about the evidence, it won't work anyway'.[/i]


I like your above description. That's what I would term faith. Faith meaning complete trust, related to fidelity/loyalty. In the sense I've just described, I would describe myself as having faith in some things and healthy scepticism about those things which I don't have enough evidence to sway me either way. In some cases I have complete faith that something 'IS' and in others that something 'IS NOT' - many other things are still in the yet to be decided box. Having said all that, there are times when we have to make a decision to have faith about things in the undecided box. There isn't always time to weigh up all the pros and cons and gather further evidence - emergencies/life threatening situations would be a good example of that.

So far I'm still voting LBK as the best suggestion for possible development. Faith in oneself
watersoul
I agree it is possible for everyone to have faith in themself, but the reality of the world is that many millions of people do not.

Consider the addict who hides from the reality of their chaotic life through drink or drugs. No faith in their own ability to better themself, simply chasing the numbing qualities of whichever substance they use.

Or even the victims of domestic violence, with self confidence shattered by years of verbal attacks and put-downs by a domineering partner. Conditioned into thinking that they are unable to escape and live an independent life without the person who effectively controls them.

Yes I agree that faith in oneself is something achievable by everyone, but I would suggest that this faith in oneself will never be universally experienced by everyone.
jeffryjon
OK if we can see the possibility and accept that it may have to take 20-100 years to achieve. I'm sure enough people would agree that it would be a worthwhile pursuit. If successful it could also greatly reduce the number of cases of the sorts of cases mentioned in your post.

I'm making a new thread to discuss the possibilities so this one can continue on its own path, just to see if any other ideas come forward.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
That depends on whether you think 'faith' is a good thing in general. I don't. We have a word for people who have very high levels of faith in general. We call them gullible. People with lots of faith are the people who respond to the scam emails, people who get conned and ripped-off constantly.
But don't you have lots of faith in science? Surely you have to have faith in something to be able to trust it?
Bluedoll
jeffryjon wrote:
... is there anything(s) on which we can all (humans) agree enough to hold faithful to it/them?
Exactly, perhaps we need a definition of faith but like all things surely there are many definitions and addenda to any definition. That is where topics go in many directions and conflicts exist within topics. I am talking about ‘A’ but you are talking about ‘C’ while that other person over there is talking about ‘B’. Can all meet in the middle to agree on anything? Certainly agreeing to disagree is not what the op is hoping for but actual agreements. All things need to connect together to be agreeable or it will not be agreeable.. science – belief – knowledge – behaviours - faith.

“Faith is the assured expectation of what is in confidence, the demonstration of realities though not yet beheld.”
Notice this takes two things. One we need to have a confidence and truly confidence can only be acquired with knowledge. Humans are capable of thinking and projection into the future. I agree with many things regarding science and its disciplines in this regarding faith.
The other thing that is needed to have faith (in anything) is an expectation. This is where faith needs to be assured to be anything of value at all.

______________________________


Personal reflections:
Is faith in something truth or not truth?
Some mislead others into thinking that a particular faith is a false path and not a truth.

What is true is when we acquire knowledge and confidence, that confidence can be broken for many reasons while conversely when we see realities occurring in the present, we reconfirm that indeed our faith was very much the truth.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
That depends on whether you think 'faith' is a good thing in general. I don't. We have a word for people who have very high levels of faith in general. We call them gullible. People with lots of faith are the people who respond to the scam emails, people who get conned and ripped-off constantly.
But don't you have lots of faith in science? Surely you have to have faith in something to be able to trust it?
No, just the opposite in fact. I KNOW how science works so I know that the process doesn't require faith.
The only 'faith' involved is that individual scientists report their conclusions/results accurately. That isn't really what I would call 'faith' though since I know that any dishonest scientist will eventually be found out and you could say that the reason I am such a strong supporter of peer-review and repeating experiments by independant groups is that I DON'T have faith in humans to always be honest.
The results of science don't need faith - they are what they are.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
That depends on whether you think 'faith' is a good thing in general. I don't. We have a word for people who have very high levels of faith in general. We call them gullible. People with lots of faith are the people who respond to the scam emails, people who get conned and ripped-off constantly.
But don't you have lots of faith in science? Surely you have to have faith in something to be able to trust it?
No, just the opposite in fact. I KNOW how science works so I know that the process doesn't require faith.
The only 'faith' involved is that individual scientists report their conclusions/results accurately. That isn't really what I would call 'faith' though since I know that any dishonest scientist will eventually be found out and you could say that the reason I am such a strong supporter of peer-review and repeating experiments by independant groups is that I DON'T have faith in humans to always be honest.
The results of science don't need faith - they are what they are.
But wouldn't you need to have faith in science in order for it to be your choice of verification of the truth?
jeffryjon
Using Bikerman's definition of Science just given, I can believe in it quite easily - test - retest - view - review is much more likely to get reliable results in which we can have faith. Still though, there will be those who deny the existence of the sun (deliberately using a ridiculous example to show the stupid stances that people sometimes take). The potential for dishonesty in humans is as Chris intimated why science is reliable but scientific beliefs sometimes are/sometimes not. In that respect, I'd say the same about God - there are charlatans in both quarters.

Chris's suggestion that dishonest scientists will eventually be found out doesn't necessarily hold too much value for me as in some cases it could take an awful long time for this to happen - especially when the resources/efforts needed to find the truth are enormous in some cases, thus meaning very few ever go the distance to find out for themselves. In my experience, the same is true for finding out about God.

Let's look at global warming - it's true - it's not true - there's a conspiracy to cover it up - there's a conspiracy to make it look real when in fact it doesn't exist. There's a common phenomena that some people have a tendency to automatically believe what they're told by 'experts' whilst others automatically belief they're being lied to. Example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

This is the reason, I wanted to restrict the debate to human behaviour, as the God/Science debate will undoubtedly continue a long way before a complete consensus can be reached.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
That depends on whether you think 'faith' is a good thing in general. I don't. We have a word for people who have very high levels of faith in general. We call them gullible. People with lots of faith are the people who respond to the scam emails, people who get conned and ripped-off constantly.
But don't you have lots of faith in science? Surely you have to have faith in something to be able to trust it?
No, just the opposite in fact. I KNOW how science works so I know that the process doesn't require faith.
The only 'faith' involved is that individual scientists report their conclusions/results accurately. That isn't really what I would call 'faith' though since I know that any dishonest scientist will eventually be found out and you could say that the reason I am such a strong supporter of peer-review and repeating experiments by independant groups is that I DON'T have faith in humans to always be honest.
The results of science don't need faith - they are what they are.
But wouldn't you need to have faith in science in order for it to be your choice of verification of the truth?
No. You can repeat the experiments yourself and get the same results. More realistically you can look at the results and SEE them for yourself.
Quote:
Chris's suggestion that dishonest scientists will eventually be found out doesn't necessarily hold too much value for me as in some cases it could take an awful long time for this to happen - especially when the resources/efforts needed to find the truth are enormous in some cases, thus meaning very few ever go the distance to find out for themselves. In my experience, the same is true for finding out about God.
The point is that they WILL be found out. No other system of thought includes that certainty - science is the only one that includes the mechanisms for doing so. Religion requires faith, science absolutely rejects it as a basis for conclusions.

Climate scientists report their data and the conclusions from that. There was a full investigation of the CRU and the conclusion was that NO dishonesty took place. If people choose to misrepresent or misinterpret such things for their own ends then that is their business and THEY must answer for it.
Bluedoll
jeffryjon wrote:
This is something I'd really like to see. I'm restricting the question to human behaviour as individuals and in society, is there anything(s) on which we can all (humans) agree enough to hold faithful to it/them? Even better if we can make a list.

I'm not talking here about what I or you believe either unless we can put something forward that nobody would object to under certain circumstances - Just for the record - I haven't got an answer yet!!!

I've a feeling this thread will either be very long or very short, but it would be so nice to get at least one reliable answer.
What is this post about again. Seems I've lost track!
Is there a way to rescue this post? In the beginning I almost thought it was not going to be a debate but something that was going forward not backward into the same ole designs.
Rolling Eyes

Perhaps someone could start over
or bring out something out thus far
to build on
that is not debate to death of the thread?
jeffryjon
Bluedoll wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
This is something I'd really like to see. I'm restricting the question to human behaviour as individuals and in society, is there anything(s) on which we can all (humans) agree enough to hold faithful to it/them? Even better if we can make a list.

I'm not talking here about what I or you believe either unless we can put something forward that nobody would object to under certain circumstances - Just for the record - I haven't got an answer yet!!!

I've a feeling this thread will either be very long or very short, but it would be so nice to get at least one reliable answer.
What is this post about again. Seems I've lost track!
Is there a way to rescue this post? In the beginning I almost thought it was not going to be a debate but something that was going forward not backward into the same ole designs.
Rolling Eyes

Perhaps someone could start over
or bring out something out thus far
to build on
that is not debate to death of the thread?


Something in which we can all have faith - in terms of human behaviour - please check the OP Very Happy
Bikerman
Well, as regards human behaviour, you can have faith in whatever you like, but there are no universals.
In fact I find the whole idea strange.
You could, for example, have faith that all humans are basically decent. The problem is that it is fairly easy to demonstrate that they are not ALL basically decent - so why have faith in something that can be shown to be wrong?
Why indeed....unless you adopt my definition of faith as belief in something regardless of evidence...

I think the question only makes any sense if you rephrase it to :
are there any human behaviours which we should aspire to? or
are there any human behaviours which you believe should be encouraged?
or something of that kind...
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
science is the only one that includes the mechanisms for doing so. Religion requires faith, science absolutely rejects it as a basis for conclusions.
In order for you to be that convinced that science has the methodology for you to get to the truth that you are looking for, won't you need to have faith in science as a tool? Also rejecting faith in God, would that not suppose that you have faith in "there is no God"?
Bikerman
Science and faith in God are two distinct issues.
I believe what science tells me because it tells everyone the same thing. If you reject it then you are living in a fantasy world. When science tells me that an object will fall at approximately 32 ft per second per second then I know it is true, and if I doubt it then I can test it.
No faith required.
Science tells my that if you drop a marble from 32ft it will take 1 second to hit the floor. If I want to get really accurate then science gives me the tools to factor wind, air resistance and other phenomena into my calculation.
Religion says 'there is a God, believe it'.
There is no comparison.
catscratches
How about faith in basic logic? You can't prove the laws of logic without relying on logic itself, so you can't really prove it. So I guess you have to rely on faith there. Not that it's such a great leap of faith, denying basic logic is pretty insane. But I'm somewhat certain pretty much everyone believes in it. People have questioned the certainty of it, but I'm certain they lived by it in their lives. At least you don't see many people walk out in full trafic "since the cars won't hurt you anyways, that would require logic and empiricism!" (they tend to do it for other reasons: mainly for suicidal or accidental reasons). Or well, at least you don't see them do it more than once.

So that's something (almost) everyone believes in. But as stated, it's a small leap of faith.

But that also depends on your definition of faith. If you define faith as "to believe in in lack of or despite of evidence or reasoning", then one could argue that faith in logic is indeed a faith, since it is without evidence or reasoning. However, one could also argue that the definition of faith depends on evidence and reasoning. As such, you need to assume that logic and empiricism works before you can tell if a belief is based on faith. And if logic is already assumed to be true, then you don't need faith for it.
Bikerman
OK...good point well made.
There is a possibility (to take one manifestation of this argument) that we are living in a computer generated world and non of it is real. That can never be disproved and it requires a (I think very small) leap of faith to presume that what we see and experience is actually us, as individual entities, experiencing some facet of a greater whole which we can call reality.

Without that basic agreement then there is absolutely no point in continuing any discussion. If we actually ARE some computer fantasy, then talk of God is just as irrelevant as talk of science.

If, on the other hand, we accept that there is such a thing as a real universe, and that we are real entities within that real universe, then science is the best way to explore further....faith offers nothing.
Bluedoll
jeffryjon wrote:
Something in which we can all have faith - in terms of human behaviour - please check the OP Very Happy
Good idea to check the op. Smile
Bikerman wrote:
Why indeed....unless you adopt my definition of faith as belief in something regardless of evidence...
This definition of faith is not a one and only definition but a very biased one.
Bikerman wrote:
Science and faith in God are two distinct issues
The op has called for faith in terms of human behaviour. What that means to me is that this discussion could be about faith in the sense that it is a human quality. Therefore a reasonable definition should not be defining faith to be specifically a religious identity?

It seems to me Bikerman that you are the one in this thread referring to God and Science. Is it taking the post off track into another debate on how atheism makes logical sense and nothing else does? Well that is your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it. It is a very biased view regarding faith however as a human quality. To have an assumption that one view of science as a superior understanding of the universe and everyone with a religious perspective is simply described as utter nonsense is very biased as well. (I believe this what is being said here and has little to do with the op)

Bikerman wrote:
If, on the other hand, we accept that there is such a thing as a real universe, and that we are real entities within that real universe, then science is the best way to explore further....faith offers nothing.
Why create an argument about science versus a biased definition of faith when it is not about what the op is calling for?

I noticed another post in this section had to do with faith in oneself. It was a human trait and mainly about character. You seem to think the word faith is only about religion?
jeffryjon wrote:
This is the reason, I wanted to restrict the debate to human behaviour, as the God/Science debate will undoubtedly continue a long way before a complete consensus can be reached.
The op is calling for a non God/Science debate.
Faith in terms of human behaviour.
Behaviour = conduct, course of action, response, adaptation.
This tells me the op is about a human quality, how we think and act, makes sense to me.

Bikerman wrote:
I think the question only makes any sense if you rephrase it to :
are there any human behaviours which we should aspire to? or
are there any human behaviours which you believe should be encouraged?
or something of that kind...
I think jeffryjon decided to create a post and gave a reasonable explanation of what the post was to be about. To switch the op now and debate what is to be encouraged either science or faith in God is op ignorance.
Let me make an educated guess. Bikerman, you will continue to debate the atheist viewpoint and run down anyone having faith in God.
The problem with this is it is not what the op is about but I have mistrust in that you already know this?
Ankhanu
To dip into a statement from this thread's offspring thread… perhaps her can all have faith in this:

People are jerks.

Though… I suppose that's also evidential, and not so much faith based.

I've had a really hard time with this thread since post 1. I can't think of anything in human behaviour that I have faith in. There are many things that seem consistent and predictable, or perhaps would be desirable… but I have no faith in them.
Basic kindness, for example. It is an admirable goal, and many display it, but I have no faith that it will be extended. I hope it will be, but I do not expect that it will be; I've no faith that kindness will be extended in any given situation. I try not to let that lack of faith or expectation interfere with my own actions towards others, but I do recognize the lack of it around me.

So, you can see how the idea of something everyone can have faith in is a near absolute impossibility.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Science and faith in God are two distinct issues.
I believe what science tells me because it tells everyone the same thing. If you reject it then you are living in a fantasy world. When science tells me that an object will fall at approximately 32 ft per second per second then I know it is true, and if I doubt it then I can test it.
No faith required.
Science tells my that if you drop a marble from 32ft it will take 1 second to hit the floor. If I want to get really accurate then science gives me the tools to factor wind, air resistance and other phenomena into my calculation.
Religion says 'there is a God, believe it'.
There is no comparison.
What I am getting at here is does faith necessarily have to be something that is only used in a religious context, i.e. faith in God? For example in your above example about science giving you a specific answer that does not require faith, can one then say that you have faith in science that it does exactly that. It is a tool you can believe in that will provide you with an accurate outcome whereas faith in God cannot be similarly tested?
jeffryjon
Chris I see your point clearly, but none of us started out with a basis in science. I went for the human behaviour angle because much of the human personality is developed at a very young age. Some of us have a good grasp of mathematics - others not, which means that those without it often struggle in science and take a very different life-path. I'm not aiming at a proposal that we should all be scientists either (in the traditional sense), though of course there's a science to almost anything. One person may want to be the best rocket scientist, another the best runner, whilst a 3rd may want to be the best gardner - whatever it is, we shouldn't have to settle for 2nd best unless it's a deliberate choice to do so. Even for a child with an interest in science and/or logic there's a point before it proves to be true and with logic in particular it could just as easily lead to a bunch of 'I can'ts ' rather than 'I cans' . Learning to talk would be a good example of how unreasonable logic could make someone behave. I'll describe the following fictitious example:

I've tried to talk over a 1,000 times now with the same result and even though I see a whole bunch of people doing it, my experiments are showing no tendency to get the hang of it - therefore, I'm a non-talker. It's easy to see that most of us don't allow such logic to get in the way of eventually learning to talk. In hindsight, the logic changes to something like "Listen kid, you can do it - I struggled as well and so did all these other people - keep with it and you'll get there" - but this encouragement alone isn't enough. Some kind of faith has to instill the presumption into that particular child to such an extent that he keeps practicing no matter what. He needs faith in himself in sufficient amount to become a talker. Now the same is true for walking, dressing oneself, and learning the steps of procedures for anything a person chooses to become or experience. It all starts with a driving need to pursue a potential - there is no proof beforehand - the proof of the pudding is in the eating - in just the same way, the proof of becoming a rocket scientist is in being a rocket science. Without faith the whole process becomes self-defeating.
Ankhanu
In all those fictitious examples, how are they faith based as opposed to evidence based? They all involve "other people are capable" situations, which provides the evidence that the learner has the potential to do likewise, even if the path may be rough along the way. They're all outcomes that require practice and the development of appropriate mental pathways to succeed; trial and error and practice are not really faith, are they?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Science and faith in God are two distinct issues.
I believe what science tells me because it tells everyone the same thing. If you reject it then you are living in a fantasy world. When science tells me that an object will fall at approximately 32 ft per second per second then I know it is true, and if I doubt it then I can test it.
No faith required.
Science tells my that if you drop a marble from 32ft it will take 1 second to hit the floor. If I want to get really accurate then science gives me the tools to factor wind, air resistance and other phenomena into my calculation.
Religion says 'there is a God, believe it'.
There is no comparison.
What I am getting at here is does faith necessarily have to be something that is only used in a religious context, i.e. faith in God? For example in your above example about science giving you a specific answer that does not require faith, can one then say that you have faith in science that it does exactly that.
No. IT DOES EXACTLY THAT. It doesn't require faith. Faith implies there is some doubt - some chance that it is wrong. Any properly scientific analysis of a problem will specify an answer that IS CORRECT. If there is some element of doubt about the specific value then that will be included in the answer, together with the statistical probabilities. Faith is entirely redundant in science - in fact any scientific analysis that requires faith is not science.
Quote:
It is a tool you can believe in that will provide you with an accurate outcome whereas faith in God cannot be similarly tested?
Do you require faith in the fact that a ruler will help you draw a straight line? Of course not - you KNOW it will.
jeffryjon
Ankhanu wrote:
In all those fictitious examples, how are they faith based as opposed to evidence based? They all involve "other people are capable" situations, which provides the evidence that the learner has the potential to do likewise, even if the path may be rough along the way. They're all outcomes that require practice and the development of appropriate mental pathways to succeed; trial and error and practice are not really faith, are they?


Simply stretch the limits a little further and the question answers itself. I deliberately started with things almost all of us succeed in doing eventually. I know there's a tendency for people to make excuses for failing the grade at something they really wanted to be and on some occasions there are genuine reasons, though even with walking/talking there's a necessity for a dogged determination to succeed. We never know as a proven fact that we'll succeed until we actually do succeed. That's dogged determination requires faith that you'll succeed.

Now choose an example where there are far less people who've succeeded and we can still find examples in most cases of those who've already done so. Many people give up for no better reason than they lack the necessary faith to keep them going until the appropriate mental/physical 'pathways' develop and there can often be a lot of trial and error along the way. An example would be subjects in high-school - there's nothing too hard about any of them because the education at that stage is pretty basic, though even taking into account that some kids are just not interested enough to learn, there's also a large number of them who decide they'll never be able to get he hang of a particular subject - these examples lack the necessary faith to develop the necessary attributes.
Bikerman
I don't think you are talking about faith here.

My experience as a teacher is that students who fail do so either because they can't be bothered to put the work in, they have other difficulties (at home for example), they are actually incapable of completing the work (some high-school work is simply beyond the ability of some students), or they have very low self-esteem.
It isn't just a lack of faith, it is a lack of belief plus an unwillingness or inability to accept evidence to the contrary. I can provide them with evidence - in the form of IQ test results, comparative evaluations, teacher assessments etc, but they don't see that it actually applies to them.
It is not unlike the pathology observed in anorexic young people. They can see themselves in the mirror and they can surely see that they are skin and bone, but their perception is that they are fat.
Lack of faith is way too simplistic a description.
jeffryjon
Ankhanu wrote:
To dip into a statement from this thread's offspring thread… perhaps her can all have faith in this:

People are jerks.

Though… I suppose that's also evidential, and not so much faith based.

I've had a really hard time with this thread since post 1. I can't think of anything in human behaviour that I have faith in. There are many things that seem consistent and predictable, or perhaps would be desirable… but I have no faith in them.
Basic kindness, for example. It is an admirable goal, and many display it, but I have no faith that it will be extended. I hope it will be, but I do not expect that it will be; I've no faith that kindness will be extended in any given situation. I try not to let that lack of faith or expectation interfere with my own actions towards others, but I do recognize the lack of it around me.

So, you can see how the idea of something everyone can have faith in is a near absolute impossibility.


Made me laugh at least and thanks for that, though at least one person has taken the question/statements in the OP to put forward an idea worth pursuing - in my opinion at least, the idea put forward as a response is not jerk-ish. thanks for the chuckle though Very Happy
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
I don't think you are talking about faith here.

My experience as a teacher is that students who fail do so either because they can't be bothered to put the work in, they have other difficulties (at home for example), they are actually incapable of completing the work (some high-school work is simply beyond the ability of some students), or they have very low self-esteem.
It isn't just a lack of faith, it is a lack of belief plus an unwillingness or inability to accept evidence to the contrary. I can provide them with evidence - in the form of IQ test results, comparative evaluations, teacher assessments etc, but they don't see that it actually applies to them.
It is not unlike the pathology observed in anorexic young people. They can see themselves in the mirror and they can surely see that they are skin and bone, but their perception is that they are fat.
Lack of faith is way too simplistic a description.


It seems we have a very different interpretation of the word faith here Chris. Very low self-esteem/lack of belief in the potential to develop one's own abilities/lack of self-worth etc. Could all of these be adequately defined as aspects of having a lack of faith in oneself? If that is the case (as I would claim) then what's wrong with being simplistic and developing the point from there? For me to believe I'm a brain surgeon would be lying to myself - I have no evidence to support such a statement and as such have no proof. To have the faith I can become one if I so choose is an entirely different matter.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Science and faith in God are two distinct issues.
I believe what science tells me because it tells everyone the same thing. If you reject it then you are living in a fantasy world. When science tells me that an object will fall at approximately 32 ft per second per second then I know it is true, and if I doubt it then I can test it.
No faith required.
Science tells my that if you drop a marble from 32ft it will take 1 second to hit the floor. If I want to get really accurate then science gives me the tools to factor wind, air resistance and other phenomena into my calculation.
Religion says 'there is a God, believe it'.
There is no comparison.
What I am getting at here is does faith necessarily have to be something that is only used in a religious context, i.e. faith in God? For example in your above example about science giving you a specific answer that does not require faith, can one then say that you have faith in science that it does exactly that.
No. IT DOES EXACTLY THAT. It doesn't require faith. Faith implies there is some doubt - some chance that it is wrong. Any properly scientific analysis of a problem will specify an answer that IS CORRECT. If there is some element of doubt about the specific value then that will be included in the answer, together with the statistical probabilities. Faith is entirely redundant in science - in fact any scientific analysis that requires faith is not science.


Scientific RESULTS as you say are not based on faith, though scientific research is often based on faith. Let's say, the faith that we can find a cure for cancer or the faith that we can develop an entirely environmentally friendly way of generating electricity. Someone/somewhere acts in faith to fund the research and others act in faith that the research will eventually find a worthwhile result (which if successful, will then become something of fact rather than faith).
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
Scientific RESULTS as you say are not based on faith, though scientific research is often based on faith. Let's say, the faith that we can find a cure for cancer or the faith that we can develop an entirely environmentally friendly way of generating electricity. Someone/somewhere acts in faith to fund the research and others act in faith that the research will eventually find a worthwhile result (which if successful, will then become something of fact rather than faith).
Possibly but it doesn't generally work like that. Science is mostly done by companies for hard-edged commercial reasons. They don't tend to have much faith - they want results and know that by pumping sufficient money into research they will get them. This is evidence based - science will nearly always give you an answer, even if that answer is that we can't yet do it.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Do you require faith in the fact that a ruler will help you draw a straight line? Of course not - you KNOW it will.
Faith is never a requirement. However, I am almost certain that it is always lurking around. Faith is in our nature. For example a person could have faith in facts, and in knowledge providing his/her answers. Both of us know however that science does not come up with all of the answers all of the time.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Do you require faith in the fact that a ruler will help you draw a straight line? Of course not - you KNOW it will.
Faith is never a requirement. However, I am almost certain that it is always lurking around. Faith is in our nature. For example a person could have faith in facts, and in knowledge providing his/her answers. Both of us know however that science does not come up with all of the answers all of the time.
If an answer is possible then science is the best way to find it. Some questions do not have simple objective answers - 'what is the meaning of life?', 'how can I be a good person?' etc. Those are not questions which science can address, but there again those are not questions which religion addresses particularly well either. Those are questions best addressed by philosophy.
ocalhoun
On further thought, there is probably nothing that everyone can have faith in.
Simply because some people have no faith in anything at all.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
I don't think you are talking about faith here.

My experience as a teacher is that students who fail do so either because they can't be bothered to put the work in, they have other difficulties (at home for example), they are actually incapable of completing the work (some high-school work is simply beyond the ability of some students), or they have very low self-esteem.
It isn't just a lack of faith, it is a lack of belief plus an unwillingness or inability to accept evidence to the contrary. I can provide them with evidence - in the form of IQ test results, comparative evaluations, teacher assessments etc, but they don't see that it actually applies to them.
It is not unlike the pathology observed in anorexic young people. They can see themselves in the mirror and they can surely see that they are skin and bone, but their perception is that they are fat.
Lack of faith is way too simplistic a description.
It has been my experience in education, in business and in life situations that quiet often the assessment of ‘failure’ is not always a correct one. In business for example, “Do you have a degree in business management?” is not always the criteria for success. There are many people that have had success in business. Many people have success in life for that matter without a degree. Businesses which focus only on profit are losers in the making.

Although, there can be no argument that not all students will receive course credits there is certainly an argument that failure can be determined by this alone. Often this is done by self-centered, arrogant, self-rightist biased wannabe teachers. Just because someone holds a degree does not make them important, right, or even a noble man. I would encourage students to make their own assessments regarding the real important grades!

There is no greater level of achievement than faith in oneself, faith in life and faith in a persons spiritual well being. To consider anything else to subsistute for this is fools gold.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Although, there can be no argument that not all students will receive course credits there is certainly an argument that failure can be determined by this alone. Often this is done by self-centered, arrogant, self-rightist biased wannabe teachers. Just because someone holds a degree does not make them important, right, or even a noble man. I would encourage students to make their own assessments regarding the real important grades!
I don't really know what this means. Students pass or fail courses and that depends on the work they do. Certainly it is possible to succeed in business without a degree - who would say otherwise? My role is to teach the students the course they have chosen to follow, not to tell them that they cannot go into business. Of course students should decide what course they wish to study - who else could decide? If a student signs up to study a course I am teaching then I will do my best to get them through that course. Whether they pass or fail is, however, ultimately up to them, not me. Certainly I teach students who I don't like, personally, but that absolutely does not influence the result they get. I mark work and exams according to strict criteria - as do nearly all teachers - and, like most teachers, we employ systems of Internal Verification (ie when I have marked a set of student assignments or exams, I will pass a sample - selected at random and with the student names removed - over to a colleague, and he/she will pass a sample of their marking over to me. We then cross-mark in order to check the consistency across the department).
'Wannabe' teachers don't teach at the institutions I have worked at. Certainly student-teachers are sometimes let loose to teach classes, but only under the supervision of myself or another senior lecturer. I haven't come across too many 'bias' teachers and the couple I have come across were biased in favour of their students rather than otherwise - to the extent, in one case, that the teacher actually did some of the coursework for a student.
Bluedoll
In business, a person can evaluate themselves on performance in a career. It is only one measure of success. How much money they make? How high their marks were in a given course at graduation? True success is not always measured with just these kinds of criteria.

It can be said students fail based on a marking system. This is not being contested, marking systems are in place for obvious reasons. What is more important than marks is the knowledge that marks are not the only criteria for success. Of course it depends on the individual and circumstances and I am not saying all students with low marks are successes. However, some may and can still be (Einstein and many other students did not do well in school) successful and some could be held back by disloyal, sarcastic and over cynical teachers who declare themselves competent teachers. They would be teachers by title only. A true teacher will inspire their students, not inhibit them by focusing on failures.

How does this relate to the topic? We can look at faith in this topic as being . . . faith is entirely redundant, faith is without objective evidence, faith is not to be relied on, not to aim to develop faith, to consider people with faith gullible, that faith is not required.

“Faith is the assured expectation of what is in confidence, the demonstration of realities though not yet beheld.”

I can discuss faith in an entirely different light and feel faith is extremely important. A real teacher that will inspire students starting out on their great adventure to have faith in themselves and aspire to go on to be successful in life (even those that may not graduate) will be extremely valuable.
When I think of a movie called, "To Sir with Love" with Sidney Poitier (story of a high school teacher) is when I think of a true teacher.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
It can be said students fail based on a marking system. This is not being contested, marking systems are in place for obvious reasons. What is more important than marks is the knowledge that marks are not the only criteria for success. Of course it depends on the individual and circumstances and I am not saying all students with low marks are successes. However, some may and can still be (Einstein and many other students did not do well in school)
Myth. Einstein was a top student in his elementary school. The myth of him being a bad student arose because he clashed with the authorities at Luitpold Gymnasium. He did fail a special scholarship entrance exam for Zurich University but he scored very high marks in maths and physics.
Quote:
and some could be held back by disloyal, sarcastic and over cynical teachers who declare themselves competent teachers. They would be teachers by title only. A true teacher will inspire their students, not inhibit them by focusing on failures.
If you are trying to have a dig at me then don't bother. I've been assessed many times over my career by education inspectors, external moderators, exam-board officials and senior LEA advisors - people who actually know what they are talking about. I am rated between 1 and 2 (1 is outstanding, 2 is Good, 3 is satisfactory and 4 is cause for concern).
Yes, there are some bad teachers, but not nearly as many as there were when I first started teaching in the 1980s.
Quote:
How does this relate to the topic? We can look at faith in this topic as being . . . faith is entirely redundant, faith is without objective evidence, faith is not to be relied on, not to aim to develop faith, to consider people with faith gullible, that faith is not required.
As far as I can see it has nothing at all to do with the OP...it seems to be a rather childish attempt to wind me up.
Of course faith should not be relied upon. If I went to the Doctor for treatment and he said ..I haven't got any evidence that this drug will do any good, but just have faith old son...I would not be happy.
Quote:
“Faith is the assured expectation of what is in confidence, the demonstration of realities though not yet beheld.”
You have mangled that quote and consequently it makes no sense. How can you have an assured expectation of what is in confidence? How can you demonstrate a reality not beheld? It is meaningless.
It should read:
Quote:
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
(Hebrews 11:1 NWT).
It is actually a terrible definition of faith, as one might expect from such a source, and is actually a classic example of the 'begging the question' fallacy (the definition includes the assertion that the object of faith is real).
Quote:
I can discuss faith in an entirely different light and feel faith is extremely important. A real teacher that will inspire students starting out on their great adventure to have faith in themselves and aspire to go on to be successful in life (even those that may not graduate) will be extremely valuable.
As I said before, the word 'faith' isn't being used consistently. Self-confidence comes from achievement - one has confidence in one's ability because one has proven competent in previous situations. The way to encourage self-confidence is by encouraging and praising achievement. I don't regard 'faith in oneself' as a particularly meaningful use of the word faith, and certainly not comparable to the way in which the word is generally used in the religious context, where it means belief without, or in spite of, evidence.
Faith is not a quality that I value in humans - I quite like it in dogs - and it is not a quality I would wish to encourage in anyone - let alone my students. I don't want them to spend their lives sat on their backsides, believing they can be successful, but never actually providing the evidence - I want them to BE successful.
Faith is something one might have to rely on in rare circumstances and if all else fails, but I'd much rather base my decisions on evidence than just have faith that they are correct, and I'd much rather the people I know (and teach) do the same.
Quote:
When I think of a movie called, "To Sir with Love" with Sidney Poitier (story of a high school teacher) is when I think of a true teacher.
I think it is a terrible film - emotionally exploitative garbage. The portrayal of the kids is so sanitised it is meaningless.
If you want a good film in that genre then go back 10 years to 'The Blackboard Jungle' - where Poitier plays a pupil. That is a much better film.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
On further thought, there is probably nothing that everyone can have faith in.
Simply because some people have no faith in anything at all.
Excellent point. But, could it be possible that those who do not have faith in anything at all, have faith that they don't have faith in anything at all? Belief in nothing is still belief in something?
Bikerman
Belief in nothing is not the same as not having faith, in the same way that atheism is not the same as asserting there is no God.
jeffryjon
I agree with most of your post above Chris, but especially in the following I have difficulty in agreeing.

Bikerman wrote:
As I said before, the word 'faith' isn't being used consistently. Self-confidence comes from achievement - one has confidence in one's ability because one has proven competent in previous situations. The way to encourage self-confidence is by encouraging and praising achievement. I don't regard 'faith in oneself' as a particularly meaningful use of the word faith, and certainly not comparable to the way in which the word is generally used in the religious context, where it means belief without, or in spite of, evidence.


Self-confidence CAN arise from having previously achieved but doesn't have to. To me self-confidence and faith in oneself are one and the same thing. I didn't succeed in my life until I started having faith in myself/self-confidence. I was raised in an environment where my mother said very little about whether I was great/bad and my father constantly criticized my inability to instantly grasp new skills. Looking back, his approach would have had more likelihood of succeeding in raising a child destined for failure. The teachers at the schools I attended (and I agree things have improved since those days) only passed encouragement to those who were achieving. Once I realised that it was my responsibility to believe in my potential and in the subjects/sports where i was very much failing the grade, I spent a lot of time on my own plugging away at developing the necessary skills/mental capacities to make the necessary improvements. At that time, my faith in self was far less than it is now - we could metaphorically say it was as big as a mustard seed (though I certainly wouldn't have known that term in those days). It was the confidence in MYSELF that raised my ability to realize potential - the self-confidence existed before the supporting evidence.
Bikerman
But how do you get confidence in yourself? You can't just 'will it' (or at least most people can't). Most people get that confidence by succeeding at something, or being praised for a good effort - that is exactly what i said above. You set students tasks where they can succeed and praise them when they do. That gives them the confidence, because they KNOW they can do it, they don't have to just HOPE they can.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Belief in nothing is not the same as not having faith, in the same way that atheism is not the same as asserting there is no God.
But is "belief in nothing" not a belief? How is it possible for anyone to believe in nothing? I also can't understand how a person cannot have faith in anything. For example faith in love or faith in a positive outcome.
Bikerman
Belief in nothing IS a belief - that was my point. Asserting there is no god IS a belief. Atheism isn't and not having faith isn't.
This will get all screwed up in semantics because I am talking about faith and you are talking about belief...
'Belief in nothing' is nihilism. Not having faith in things is rationalism.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Asserting there is no god IS a belief. Atheism isn't and not having faith isn't.
Not sure whether I understand and maybe you can correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying atheism is not a belief and "not having faith" is also not a belief?
Bikerman
Yes exactly that.
Most (weak) atheists don't say there is definitely no God, just that there is no convincing evidence which would lead to the belief that there is.
Someone without faith in X isn't saying that X is definitely untrue, just that they have not seen enough to convince them that it is true.
In both cases evidence will change the position if/when available.

The problem is, as I said, that 'faith' and 'belief' are being mixed up as if they mean the same thing. They don't.
Faith is more certain (to the faithful) than belief. It is common for people to change their beliefs - I do it all the time. It is very uncommon for a person to change (or loose) their 'faith'. Belief may or may not be based on sound, solid evidence. Faith is not (otherwise it isn't faith).
Bluedoll
I do believe that faith and belief are not so different. I understand faith and belief to be very closely interconnected so that the two go hand in hand. Regardless, of what I read here, I will continue to have faith in the things that I hold valuable.
This includes even something as simple as a movie I liked. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I know what I belief in and how I feel. I own that! I could care less about sarcastic comments made regarding how I feel about something.
Faith I consider very valuable. It is something that gives our life meaning and subsistence. I also believe that a common faith is very possible in a group or a society. My opinion to make it possible would be based on mutual respect and understanding of other human beings.

@Bikerman
Do not be argumentative. I am not as you wrote, “taking a dig at you.” Clearly, I can not nor will not agree with much of the garbage you dish out and the way you present it.
I do not feel, you are the expert on these subjects nor do I feel should anyone regard you as such. I have always had a problem with the way you define things. Your explanations usually contain a tone of rudeness. It certainly does not have anything to do with being challenged either. I can say alternatively when someone has a different belief, viewpoint and they are able to express it reasonably, much more can be accomplished.
However, your methods, your ignorance in regard to the op, your inability to recognize that you can not instruct what definitions are to be to other people, does make it almost impossible to adhere to a concord. I read a show of little respect or compassion in your analysis of subjects insisting that your view be recognized with supremacy. All views are not to be narrowed down to robotic scientific jargon. There is so much that can and does contain meanings without it.
Though, I want nothing of your belief system, this thread has shown me something. It has shown me not by reason but by demonstration. Even after a call for agreement, your contribution is one that will seek to remove any possibility of accomplishing this call.

@ jeffryjon
I can see what you mean regarding potential. Without hope, in a lot of situations, there can be little else. I suppose, it applies not only to our life but the world as well. Though some might disagree and for me that disagreement is welcomed, I believe, the world is heading for destruction in many areas. Even after saying that, there is always hope and we can have faith there will be a better future. Politicians, scientists, scholars, philosophers alone will not deter it but powerful faith can.

@deanhills
I agree that to have faith requires believing in something. Everyone beliefs in something, power, money, technology, etc and they do indeed put their faith in what they believe in.
Ankhanu
Faith and belief are linked, I'm certain that has not been disputed. What was disputed was that they are different things, as has been mentioned. I agree with Bikerman that the two concepts have been combined in many cases to be the same thing in this thread... which is really quite confusing and muddies the potential for coherent discussion.

I agree that there can be a universal belief or even confidence developed.

I do not agree that there is something that we can have universal faith in.

On the second point, I welcome being convinced to the contrary... it seems, in fact, to be the entire point of the OP. But, the confusion in language and terminology is really hindering the discussion, imo, and people are getting hung up on beliefs rather than faith.
Bikerman
Nothing I said was rude.
When you make references in successive postings to
Quote:
disloyal, sarcastic and over cynical teachers
and
Quote:
self-centered, arrogant, self-rightist biased wannabe teachers.
it seems clear to me that this is intended personally - despite what you say. I was, therefore, understandably not feeling particularly well disposed to you when I replied, BUT my posting was perfectly civil and I didn't make any sarcastic remarks. You cannot seriously ask for respect - especially when you post personal abuse - but you can expect, and will get, civil replies.

I simply pointed out that you had got the quote from Hebrews wrong, and pointed out why. I gave you the correct version. I don't 'instruct' on definitions, I provide them from whatever source seems appropriate. It is up to you whether you accept them or not - they aren't my definitions. My reference to mangling the quote was something I should have expanded on, but I was pretty sure you wouldn't want to listen, so I didn't bother and thus it looks more 'curt' than intended.*

There is no need to have faith in things that concern only yourself. If you say that a particular film is your favourite then it is....who can say otherwise? I simply gave you my own opinion that the film is not one I liked at all - it was a candy-floss film - a feel-good, light-comedy vehicle for Poitier. They even end up doing a production number at the end with Poitier singing with the kids. OK - if you like it then fine - I like Grease for similar reasons. Since you obviously liked Poitier in the film, I recommended another film on the same theme which also has Poitier in it, but which is less emotionally manipulative and which gives a more realistic picture of typical kids in a classroom. It is much 'tougher' and you might not like it so much, but it does give a better idea of what a classroom is like...

* Now, I'm going to offer some advice which I considered doing in response to the last quote but thought the better of. You will probably regard it as insulting or patronising or sarcastic, though it isn't, and you are, of course, free to ignore it if you like - but it is actually meant to be helpful.

When you get on your high-horse, your English goes to pot. I don't normally pick it up, unless I genuinely can't understand what you are trying to say, but if you are submitting work for professional consideration (you mentioned that you are interested in writing) then it doesn't look good. I suspect that you are thinking faster than you are typing - already mentally on to the next sentence before you finish the one being typed. Couple that with your tendency to throw some nice-sounding words into the mix, and you get a mess. It doesn't work, honestly.

My suggestion is to do what I sometimes do (despite what you might think, I don't think I'm Mr Perfect, and I've posted my fair share of ungrammatical, semi-literate garbage when I've posted in anger or haste). So try preparing the posting using Wordpad (or a text editor with a spell-check). Then, when finished, before you post it have a cup of tea, or do something else, and put it to one side for 10 minutes. After 10 minutes or more read it back, before you cut-paste it into a reply.
I find that the 10 minutes makes all the difference - mistakes that I was 'too close' to see now become much more apparent.
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
My suggestion is to do what I sometimes do (despite what you might think, I don't think I'm Mr Perfect, and I've posted my fair share of ungrammatical, semi-literate garbage when I've posted in anger or haste). So try preparing the posting using Wordpad (or a text editor with a spell-check). Then, when finished, before you post it have a cup of tea, or do something else, and put it to one side for 10 minutes. After 10 minutes or more read it back, before you cut-paste it into a reply.
I find that the 10 minutes makes all the difference - mistakes that I was 'too close' to see now become much more apparent.


I do this from time to time myself, it really does help to maintain focus and a certain amount of dispassion, even in passionate discussions.
jeffryjon
@ Chris

or simply cut out the wordpad step and make use of the PREVIEW' facility in replies. I made it a habit very quickly after joining as it helps me spot any typing or grammatical errors, along with the awkward placing of lots of quotes in a single post which sometimes gets messy. PREVIEW really helps sorting out all of that. Must say though, the 10 minute tea-break could also be beneficial where the mind becomes hyperactive in a post.
Bluedoll
Ankhanu wrote:
Faith and belief are linked, I'm certain that has not been disputed. What was disputed was that they are different things, as has been mentioned. I agree with Bikerman that the two concepts have been combined in many cases to be the same thing in this thread... which is really quite confusing and muddies the potential for coherent discussion. -


Can you point out where in the thread the two different words have been combined to cause confusion? That would be helpful. Tthe two words are different but like love and charity very closely related. Perhaps a definition is in order. In defining the words, I do not care much for the description that they are concepts. It is not a word I would use to define faith. For me a concept implies insincerity. Not sure if you know what I am getting at there?

I do not know if it is true that faith and belief being linked was not disputed in this thread but regardless I do agree they are completely different words. I belief they are very similar. It is difficult to have one without the other. I also consider to have a belief, you need reason to get to the point to believe in something. I am making this point clear to indicate that what has been said in this thread that faith is blind is not true.

“Faith is the assured expectation of what is in confidence, the demonstration of realities though not yet beheld.”
Bikerman wrote:
I simply pointed out that you had got the quote from Hebrews wrong, and pointed out why. I gave you the correct version. I don't 'instruct' on definitions, I provide them from whatever source seems appropriate. It is up to you whether you accept them or not - they aren't my definitions. My reference to mangling the quote was something I should have expanded on . . .


“Faith is the assured expectation of what is in confidence, the demonstration of realities though not yet beheld.”

This is my definition and my quote now. I am claiming it as my own. If you want to dispute this fine, take it up with the owner regarding copyright infringement.

Please use quote tags when quoting other users. -ocalhoun
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
@ Chris
or simply cut out the wordpad step and make use of the PREVIEW' facility in replies. I made it a habit very quickly after joining as it helps me spot any typing or grammatical errors, along with the awkward placing of lots of quotes in a single post which sometimes gets messy. PREVIEW really helps sorting out all of that. Must say though, the 10 minute tea-break could also be beneficial where the mind becomes hyperactive in a post.

The reason I don't just rely on preview is that I don't always want to leave something on a 'live' connection for long - my broadband can be very flaky sometimes, and if it is in Word (my normal choice) then it doesn't matter if I lose the connection (and I can also apply a proper English spell and grammar check rather than a US one Smile
jeffryjon
Good point with the spellchecker - I'd love to exchange your flaky broadband connection for the flaky one I have here - We get about 256Kps and 6 - 20 drops a day on average, sometimes for over an hour - it does happen often when I post a preview, though the back button works okay and then as a safety margin I copy the whole thing to pasteboard. Last year, it felt like internet heaven when I was in blighty for a while. (Seriously off-topic I know - apologies everyone)
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
You cannot seriously ask for respect - especially when you post personal abuse - but you can expect, and will get, civil replies.
You should stop repeating this same statement all the time. I do not agree that what I am writing is personal abuse. I am calling a spade a spade, that is all and my focus is on the ideas being presented.

Your postings on the other hand have had a long history of statements regarding this lack of respect to other posts and I am not talking about the English language.
If you have trouble understanding something, you should state which part you do not understand.
It might be more connected to on topic discussion.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Can you point out where in the thread the two different words have been combined to cause confusion?

How about:
jeffryjon wrote:
I'll reluctantly give example of the kinds of things, though don't want to restrict it as I've not yet managed to come up with a single one.

a) Never steal - obviously people would not ALL agree as even honest people may think of a situation where they believe it would be warranted.

b) Always be vibrantly happy and ............ (some guaranteed result) - again I could see there wouldn't be agreement from everyone.

I'm not expecting an answer to be easy or for it to require blind faith, just want to see of any of us can come up with just one thing about human behaviour on which we can all agree all of the time.


- Deanhills' assertions regarding "faith" in science.

Bluedoll wrote:
Regardless, of what I read here, I will continue to have faith in the things that I hold valuable.
This includes even something as simple as a movie I liked. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I know what I belief in and how I feel. I own that! I could care less about sarcastic comments made regarding how I feel about something.


- Personally, I find the whole "faith in one's self" to be a confusion of faith, belief and confidence. I don't really see how it can be a faith position.

Belief is simply the acceptance that something is true.

Faith is a vector one may follow towards a belief. It is acceptance based on assurance, rather than evidence. Sometimes it operates despite of evidence. A path to belief that is based on desire to believe, really.

You can think of belief as being a destination. Faith is a path towards that destination. Obviously, the two are linked, but they are not the same thing. Similarly, faith is not the only method towards reaching a belief.

You seem to have great difficulty with the word "concept". It is not in any way disrespectful or controversial when talking about beliefs, it is, at the heart, what all beliefs are. A concept is an idea, the mental picture of ideas or objects. If you can think it, it's essentially a concept. Even God, as we can perceive God, is a concept. I'll pretend that God exists, but even with that stipulation, our understanding of God is a concept, a mental construction of what God may be. This is in no way disrespectful to what God is, well, unless we have it completely wrong, which is entirely possible.

Every word, every idea, is a concept. It's not a bad thing and it does not belittle the things they describe or represent.

Bluedoll wrote:
“Faith is the assured expectation of what is in confidence, the demonstration of realities though not yet beheld.”

This is my definition and my quote now. I am claiming it as my own. If you want to dispute this fine, take it up with the owner regarding copyright infringement.


Basically, when boiled down, this definition does fit with a standard definition of faith. It extolls developing belief even if no evidence has been provided. Being "confident" that something is true based on simply expecting it to be so.


catscratches wrote:
How about faith in basic logic? You can't prove the laws of logic without relying on logic itself, so you can't really prove it. So I guess you have to rely on faith there. Not that it's such a great leap of faith, denying basic logic is pretty insane. But I'm somewhat certain pretty much everyone believes in it. People have questioned the certainty of it, but I'm certain they lived by it in their lives. At least you don't see many people walk out in full trafic "since the cars won't hurt you anyways, that would require logic and empiricism!" (they tend to do it for other reasons: mainly for suicidal or accidental reasons). Or well, at least you don't see them do it more than once.

So that's something (almost) everyone believes in. But as stated, it's a small leap of faith.

But that also depends on your definition of faith. If you define faith as "to believe in in lack of or despite of evidence or reasoning", then one could argue that faith in logic is indeed a faith, since it is without evidence or reasoning. However, one could also argue that the definition of faith depends on evidence and reasoning. As such, you need to assume that logic and empiricism works before you can tell if a belief is based on faith. And if logic is already assumed to be true, then you don't need faith for it.


This has been the closest thing in this thread that could be considered faith. Pretty much everything else presented has been about belief or aspirations.
It's also likely the closest thing to an universal we might encounter as well, much as catscratches mentions.
jeffryjon
Ankhanu wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
I'll reluctantly give example of the kinds of things, though don't want to restrict it as I've not yet managed to come up with a single one.

a) Never steal - obviously people would not ALL agree as even honest people may think of a situation where they believe it would be warranted.

b) Always be vibrantly happy and ............ (some guaranteed result) - again I could see there wouldn't be agreement from everyone.

I'm not expecting an answer to be easy or for it to require blind faith, just want to see of any of us can come up with just one thing about human behaviour on which we can all agree all of the time.




I'll agree with your criticism on point a) because in hindsight I had failed to define adequately define what I was thinking about and as such the statement as I wrote it is a belief in a moral value - correction accepted and thanks Very Happy

b) on the other hand, is very much a faith because there is no evidence to support it at the point of taking the path of faith toward the result.
Ankhanu
Yeah, B could require some faith, depending on what "..." came to represent. If it read "Always be vibrantly happy and you will appear happy" it's more tautology than faith, right Smile If the statement were completed into something more, it could certainly require a faith position, however. Only way to find out is to explore it!!

It could remain a simple value statement, however; an aspiration more than a faith path.
Bluedoll
Thanks for elaborating Ankhanu.
Though, I did not mean I found the word concept to be disrespectful, just that I would not use it. I understand what you mean that we can conceptualize everything. It just does not do justice to what I am trying to express, that is all. Not that I thought it was totally wrong or anything like that, only that we are not seeing things in the same light.

This is how I look to having faith.
Why do we have confidence in something? If we do not believe in something, we can not have confidence. The only way to have confidence is to search out the truth. Then, we have something to belief in. We develop our confidence.

I am going to assume this makes sense to you? It is straight forward? It is to me anyway.

I do not really see this as a destination (though, I understand we can look at the same things in many ways). I see this as growth and maturity. (not to be confused with age). The more we understand truth, the more confidence we can hold. I am not referring specifically to religious, science or philosophy subjects here either. I am focusing on human behaviour or charactristics. Ok, with this?

Now, that we know truth and we have confidence, what does that do for us? The next thought concerns time. Our confidence will inspire the future based on our knowledge of the truth.

We can have an expectation of what can happen. We do have a capacity to understand future events because of our confidence in our beliefs.

I am attempting to express what I hold to be true, that faith need not be blind or without evidence but can be based on our belief system.


A oversimplified example:

There is a very important meeting you do not want to miss.
You say, ‘don’t worry, I will be there.”
You have faith that your car will take you there because it is a Oldsmobile. Now if it was a ford you would not have much confidence. (I will expect hate mail now from ford lovers).

The reason you have this faith? Not because you are a stupid person that things she is lucky but because you are basing your faith on knowledge.

Yes, when the time comes, there is a remote possibility, the car might not start but this is not the point.
The point is you can say to the person with conviction, “have faith in me.”
They can be assured you will be there even if you have to take the stinky bus to make it happen.

_________________________

I hope this helps you to understand what I was trying to express. I can understand different points of view and I did understand yours but I wanted to express mine which is again different than yours.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Faith is more certain (to the faithful) than belief. It is common for people to change their beliefs - I do it all the time. It is very uncommon for a person to change (or loose) their 'faith'. Belief may or may not be based on sound, solid evidence. Faith is not (otherwise it isn't faith).
Thanks, now this makes sense to me. Everyone can have a variety of beliefs, but not everyone has faith in something that cannot be scientifically proven. Someone who has faith can also have a number of beliefs that change every day, including about their faith? Believing in God is faith. Believing that the Bible is the only way to know God is a belief, and that belief can change?
Ankhanu
Bluedoll, I'll tackle your post when I get back from shopping, there's a lot there Smile

deanhills wrote:
Thanks, now this makes sense to me. Everyone can have a variety of beliefs, but not everyone has faith in something that cannot be scientifically proven.


You can really drop the word "scientifically" from the sentence and it will function better; "Everyone can have a variety of beliefs, but not everyone has faith in something that cannot be proven."

deanhills wrote:
Believing in God is faith. Believing that the Bible is the only way to know God is a belief, and that belief can change?


They are both beliefs. Both rely upon faith. One is broad (God exists), the other is more specific (The Bible is the only way to know God), but they're both beliefs. The faith aspect is that these beliefs are true, despite the fact that we really don't know what God is, nor is there solid evidence to say that the belief is true.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Bluedoll, I'll tackle your post when I get back from shopping, there's a lot there Smile

deanhills wrote:
Thanks, now this makes sense to me. Everyone can have a variety of beliefs, but not everyone has faith in something that cannot be scientifically proven.


You can really drop the word "scientifically" from the sentence and it will function better; "Everyone can have a variety of beliefs, but not everyone has faith in something that cannot be proven."
Totally agreed. And it reads much better as well. Smile

Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Believing in God is faith. Believing that the Bible is the only way to know God is a belief, and that belief can change?

They are both beliefs. Both rely upon faith. One is broad (God exists), the other is more specific (The Bible is the only way to know God), but they're both beliefs. The faith aspect is that these beliefs are true, despite the fact that we really don't know what God is, nor is there solid evidence to say that the belief is true.
This I don't understand by the definition of faith being something that cannot be proven. The Bible is there. We cannot prove where it comes from, but people have various beliefs about many of the statements in the Bible. Using texts out of the Bible as "proof". Whereas I thought faith goes much deeper than beliefs.
Bikerman
'Deeper' is difficult. I actually disagree with Ankhanu's formulation, in that I see faith as the over-arching general position, and particular beliefs as the details which are used to bolster that general faith.

In operation one could compare it to the difference between a scientific theory (a broad statement of how things are), and individual laws (specific and precise statements of how the individual 'bits' of the theory operate). The analogy is far from perfect* but may prove useful to illustrate what I'm getting at.

The individual parts of any scientific theory change with time - Newtonian gravity is much different from Einsteinian relativity; Darwin's notion of evolution was much different from the modern synthesis. The basic theory remains but the specifics change.

Similarly, the general faith position here is that there is a God. The specific beliefs which bolster that faith will vary for different individuals, and for a single individual with time.

So, if we go back to the bible. The 'faith' is that God exists. The 'beliefs' are :
  • That the bible is literally the word of God and is inerrrant
  • That the bible is metaphorically the word of God and is inerrant
  • That the bible is the inspired word of God as expressed imperfectly by human agents
  • That the bible is a general guide to knowing God, but isn't meant to be taken too seriously
  • That the bible is actually little more than a collection of Jewish folk-myth and questionable accounts of a 1st century radical.

You will find ALL those beliefs held by people who have the same basic faith in the fact that there is a God.

*I am certainly not saying that a scientific theory is, or requires, faith.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
In operation one could compare it to the difference between a scientific theory (a broad statement of how things are), and individual laws (specific and precise statements of how the individual 'bits' of the theory operate). The analogy is far from perfect* but may prove useful to illustrate what I'm getting at.
This is a very good analogy. Thanks. You're right, saying faith goes deeper was not a good way of putting it.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
It can be said students fail based on a marking system. This is not being contested, marking systems are in place for obvious reasons. What is more important than marks is the knowledge that marks are not the only criteria for success. Of course it depends on the individual and circumstances and I am not saying all students with low marks are successes. However, some may and can still be (Einstein and many other students did not do well in school)
Myth. Einstein was a top student in his elementary school. The myth of him being a bad student arose because he clashed with the authorities at Luitpold Gymnasium. He did fail a special scholarship entrance exam for Zurich University but he scored very high marks in maths and physics.
Does anyone know of a famous person that did well, successful, accomplished that did not do well in school or was without a university education?
This could be someone who had faith in themselves.

thanks in advance
Bikerman
There are lots of examples.
Richard Branson, Isaac Newton, Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen, Walt Disney

Those are a few that I know of...I'm sure you can find many more with a google...
jeffryjon
Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
It can be said students fail based on a marking system. This is not being contested, marking systems are in place for obvious reasons. What is more important than marks is the knowledge that marks are not the only criteria for success. Of course it depends on the individual and circumstances and I am not saying all students with low marks are successes. However, some may and can still be (Einstein and many other students did not do well in school)
Myth. Einstein was a top student in his elementary school. The myth of him being a bad student arose because he clashed with the authorities at Luitpold Gymnasium. He did fail a special scholarship entrance exam for Zurich University but he scored very high marks in maths and physics.
Does anyone know of a famous person that did well, successful, accomplished that did not do well in school or was without a university education?
This could be someone who had faith in themselves.

thanks in advance


Try Richard Branson - It could be argues that he came from a fairly successful family but even so is dyslexic and was a poor academic performer at school - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson - Apparently he doesn't believe in God either and as such any faith he may have would have to be in himself.

(edit) whoops, missed that Chris had already made that suggestion
catscratches
jeffryjon wrote:

Apparently he doesn't believe in God either and as such any faith he may have would have to be in himself.
Not really. There are lots of things you can have faith in apart from God or oneself. But with that said, it's probable that he did "have faith in himself" (as in: confidence) lest he would not have tried.
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
It can be said students fail based on a marking system. This is not being contested, marking systems are in place for obvious reasons. What is more important than marks is the knowledge that marks are not the only criteria for success. Of course it depends on the individual and circumstances and I am not saying all students with low marks are successes. However, some may and can still be (Einstein and many other students did not do well in school)
Myth. Einstein was a top student in his elementary school. The myth of him being a bad student arose because he clashed with the authorities at Luitpold Gymnasium. He did fail a special scholarship entrance exam for Zurich University but he scored very high marks in maths and physics.
Does anyone know of a famous person that did well, successful, accomplished that did not do well in school or was without a university education?
This could be someone who had faith in themselves.

thanks in advance
Thomas Edison. But it would appear in his case, and maybe others as well, that it was because his mother had lots of faith in him. And then that probably helped to build his own faith in himself. When he did not make it at school, his mother took him out of school and then home-schooled him.
Source: Wikipedia
I think it is very rare that one finds individuals who were born with lots of self-confidence and who then without schooling were responsible for major feats. More often than not there has always been a role model or someone who sparked something in them.
simple-thought
What is the fundamental reason that I believe in the existence of God? Simple and compelling answer to it is, that it simply makes sense that an Almighty God exists. If logically built one can explain how the world and its order emanates from God.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
It can be said students fail based on a marking system. This is not being contested, marking systems are in place for obvious reasons. What is more important than marks is the knowledge that marks are not the only criteria for success. Of course it depends on the individual and circumstances and I am not saying all students with low marks are successes. However, some may and can still be (Einstein and many other students did not do well in school)
Myth. Einstein was a top student in his elementary school. The myth of him being a bad student arose because he clashed with the authorities at Luitpold Gymnasium. He did fail a special scholarship entrance exam for Zurich University but he scored very high marks in maths and physics.
Does anyone know of a famous person that did well, successful, accomplished that did not do well in school or was without a university education?
This could be someone who had faith in themselves.

thanks in advance
Thomas Edison. But it would appear in his case, and maybe others as well, that it was because his mother had lots of faith in him. And then that probably helped to build his own faith in himself. When he did not make it at school, his mother took him out of school and then home-schooled him.
Source: Wikipedia
I think it is very rare that one finds individuals who were born with lots of self-confidence and who then without schooling were responsible for major feats. More often than not there has always been a role model or someone who sparked something in them.


Thomas Edison was a thieving scoundrel and had such little faith in his own abilities, he was constantly sabotaging, belittling, defaming and 'borrowing' from his competition. Not exactly Mr. Faith.

To become a business mogul or modern billionaire these days, dropping out of school somewhat seems like a rite of passage (Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates, Dell etc). The computer/tech/startup guys (billionaires) all seemed to have followed a very similar path with regards to education. They started it, but never needed to finish it. There's no denying though, that Mark Twain was onto something when he said, "I've never let my schooling interfere with my education".

Whether amassing a huge and often instant wealth is any kind of achievement (compared with say what Einstein gave us) either morally or even in terms of difficulty, is not for me to say. You can go through the Forbes Rich List and see a laundry list of serendipity. A who's who of beautiful mistakes. People who got incredibly lucky. To be fair, many of them innovated later on but most either just had a 'now' idea or were in the right place at the right time with the right product.

I kind of glossed over the essentials of the argument so forgive me if I'm not understanding it properly but I would hardly regard any of those Forbes 'winners' as people of any tremendous faith. Theologically I definitely wouldn't. They didn't have faith and that's kind of evident. They didn't have faith in hard work and effort put-in being rewarded. Not even in finishing school. They didn't have faith in the simple pleasures in life. They didn't seem (some of them) to display a tremendous self-belief in terms of self-value or confidence. I'm saying that they didn't seem to have faith IN themselves.

I forget who said, "The richest man is not the man who has the most, but the man who needs the least" but that pretty much sums up my opinion on self-made excessive 'success' (most of the time). This would be the theological response to (in terms of faith). I do know it was GKC who said "To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it". And these people are dull, Dean. Dull, godless and without any kind of faith. They live a worldly existence for the now and they have made a Faustian deal for riches because their soul isn't of value of them. That's okay, fair play to them. Life is too short... But eternity is a bit longer.

So I guess the man of faith may instead reply, "stick your riches, notoriety, acceptance and status, because you can't take with you". I do admire a man who comes out of nothing and builds up his own empire with broken tools, as we all do. But let's call that determination rather than faith. Dissatisfaction and anxiety stemming from persistent feelings of self-inadequacy is the root of all fame. These are not faithful people. In fact, if they of that rich and famous celebrity formula, you can bet they've done a lot of screwing people over on the come-up. It's sort of the law. You don't get to be a millionaire by being charitable. That kind of wealth is only accumulated with cloaks and daggers. I would also go so far as to say that those who have achieved worldly fame and left a legacy by doing honest, moral and good deeds have only done so by martyrdom. The world, after all, loves it own. We uplift the devils who want to emulate and bludgeon the angels who tried to warn us not to. But what else is new?

Quick check: How celebrated are they? And have we killed them yet?
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
I kind of glossed over the essentials of the argument so forgive me if I'm not understanding it properly but I would hardly regard any of those Forbes 'winners' as people of any tremendous faith. Theologically I definitely wouldn't. They didn't have faith and that's kind of evident. They didn't have faith in hard work and effort put-in being rewarded. Not even in finishing school. They didn't have faith in the simple pleasures in life. They didn't seem (some of them) to display a tremendous self-belief in terms of self-value or confidence. I'm saying that they didn't seem to have faith IN themselves.
I don't quite agree. Those guys have lots of faith in their own abilities. As well as in their dreams. Ethics probably would not matter for them as they probably are single-mindedly driven to succeed. Usually with success there are always people who lose something. When they take market share someone else loses market share. When they control a market segment such as Microsoft has, then others are battling to get in. Can't imagine Microsoft saying that it's going to share more of its market with others in the future so every one can get an opportunity to make a buck. Business is business. In order to be good at it one has to have plenty of faith in lots of things, particularly in one self and one's objectives.
loremar
I have more faith in simple life. I live in a very quasi-ascetic lifestyle. I don't find anything wrong with determination though. At least the NOW looks more promising than the hereafter. I even find it annoying that some people think that these guys should suffer for what? Being so lucky? Everyone deserves happiness if there's really eternity regardless of faith.
nickfyoung
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
How about FAITH in oneself?


A good faith to have. To have faith in one's self or to believe in one's self will make dealing with every day life easier. So many people struggle with low self esteem especially kids. If kids could be taught some how to believe in them selves and see them selves as worthy people they could face the challenges of adulthood. If you can teach kids to believe they are special and deserve only the very best for life they will face life with a completely different attitude.
Kids with a low self esteem seem to be the ones bullied at school. Their school work suffers. Some are too shy to put up their hand and ask a question for fear of being ridiculed. Some kids have never experience any sort of love at home and spend a lifetime trying to find acceptance. They have failed marriages because they are looking for a Mother's love still and putting pressure on a wife because of it.
Kids with low self esteem make poor choices in career and partner and most other areas of life because they just don't think they are good enough. They will tend to settle for second best.
So believe and have faith in yourself. Believe that you deserve nothing but the best in life and don't be satisfied with anything less. Teach your kids the same and give them every chance of making it.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
I kind of glossed over the essentials of the argument so forgive me if I'm not understanding it properly but I would hardly regard any of those Forbes 'winners' as people of any tremendous faith. Theologically I definitely wouldn't. They didn't have faith and that's kind of evident. They didn't have faith in hard work and effort put-in being rewarded. Not even in finishing school. They didn't have faith in the simple pleasures in life. They didn't seem (some of them) to display a tremendous self-belief in terms of self-value or confidence. I'm saying that they didn't seem to have faith IN themselves.
I don't quite agree. Those guys have lots of faith in their own abilities. As well as in their dreams. Ethics probably would not matter for them as they probably are single-mindedly driven to succeed. Usually with success there are always people who lose something. When they take market share someone else loses market share. When they control a market segment such as Microsoft has, then others are battling to get in. Can't imagine Microsoft saying that it's going to share more of its market with others in the future so every one can get an opportunity to make a buck. Business is business. In order to be good at it one has to have plenty of faith in lots of things, particularly in one self and one's objectives.


I'm not saying making money is unethical, there's just a point when it becomes (or seemingly evident to me personally) that the money-making has become the main goal in life (million/billionaires for example). You get deeper into the psychology of these people though, and you discover that the money just becomes a statistic after you're comfortable for longer than your life expectancy. The real goal is power and winning. Being the best. This is the kind of hubris I am referring to. The competitiveness is all for what? Because you have faith in yourself? Doubtful. Aside from the obvious religious interpretations of "faith". Does this fit any kind of secular definition of the word either? Is it the paradox of confidence? A little is good but too much is bad? There's no doubt Mr Gates has faith in himself and his company (in the secular definition of faith) because he's done nothing but succeed but faith in general? As an external all-encompassing belief in the goodness and morality of man and man's relationship with man's creator? This man is currently putting all his money into rallying against Pro-life. Bill isn't exactly placing tremendous value on the sanctity of life at the minute. He also funded Bush's war on terror. I think it's safe to Vito Mr. Gates from the religious interpretation of the word "faith". Of course everyone needs to make money and eat, but attributing "faith" (in any definition of the word) to those of extreme wealth and success is probably the last group of people I would attribute it to. The incredibly rich have placed all their 'faith' in worldly materialism to give them value and credibility and the famous have showed such a lack of faith in self-value that they've seen to it that the whole world needs validate them. That's kind of tragic to me, is all I am saying.
loremar
What's tragic about changing people's lives? Can you post all this nonsense without them?

What's wrong with all these material things you say? All I see from you're so called "faith" is nothing but passion. I guess the promise of Heaven makes you happy? I can be just as passionate and happy when I play some games in my PC which is by the way thanks to these people which you say is tragic.

It's strange that it seems you don't think that these people deserve to go to heaven, otherwise why would you be whining all this nonsense. So they're pro-choice. So f**** what? Does that mean they should go to hell? Wow. I didn't know you can go to hell by caring about other people's well being.
TheLimey
Well we are faithful to things which we do everyday. Faith that every time you go to inhale air that air will come into our lungs. We can not see oxygen but have faith it is always there.
Ankhanu
TheLimey wrote:
Well we are faithful to things which we do everyday. Faith that every time you go to inhale air that air will come into our lungs. We can not see oxygen but have faith it is always there.

Being a coastal lad, I can't say I have that faith... and can say that having that faith can easily lead to a lungfull of water Razz I've also been in situations on land in which I have had little to no faith that inhaling would bring me the oxygen I need (for example, in smoke, or near other chemical reactions).

My uncle also died of carbon monoxide poisoning; faith in the presence (or ability to extract) oxygen can lead to some pretty unfortunate side effects.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
I think it's safe to Vito Mr. Gates from the religious interpretation of the word "faith". Of course everyone needs to make money and eat, but attributing "faith" (in any definition of the word) to those of extreme wealth and success is probably the last group of people I would attribute it to. The incredibly rich have placed all their 'faith' in worldly materialism to give them value and credibility and the famous have showed such a lack of faith in self-value that they've seen to it that the whole world needs validate them. That's kind of tragic to me, is all I am saying.
I think I get where you're going with this and to a certain extent that can be true. There seems to be so much ego going into success that the person who is successful in that extreme may not be able to relate to religion. I don't think all of the rich are alike however, there are quite a number who do have religious faith.
Josso
Bluedoll wrote:
Does anyone know of a famous person that did well, successful, accomplished that did not do well in school or was without a university education?
This could be someone who had faith in themselves.


Two years late on this topic sorry lol but I would like to add George Stephenson to that list.
deanhills
Henry Ford would probably qualify as well.
simple-thought
Having faith in one s ability is very important.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.