FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Faith in your argument





Dialogist
Having faith in your argument is a paradox is it not? Why feel the need to argue?

dictionary dot com wrote:

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof


This trips me up a lot whenever I see "faith" being a motivating factor in intense debate. I often see faith vs fact arguments often in theist vs atheist arguments or in science vs religion arguments and I too have been a proponent of the "you can't disprove that which you can't show evidence to support" true(ism). Simply because is an invincible device which science, law and logic all have to respect for them themselves to exist. It is though, a horrible argument. It almost reminds you of a child running around a garden shouting, "you can't catch me, you can't catch me!"

It's almost an apology in a sense. It is a priest dressing up like a lawyer. A rabbi dressing up as a scientist. A wolf, in a sheep's clothing, if you will. It's not illogical, it is correct. It is actually unassailable and 100% air-tight but it really does nothing other than lock understanding out. It attempts to use rationality and evidence against rationality and evidence; it uses the weapon of its nemesis to deflect its weaponry and it proves nothing whatsoever, asides from one not-so-small thing against the "faithful" - that their faith is not faith.

False faith in an argument:

The edifice of science was built upon first philosophy and then theory which... blah blah blah... (I stand guilty of using this myself)

True faith in an argument:

*smile*, I believe otherwise (end of argument).

He lost right? Lost what?

Negatives:

It seems smug, self-righteous, in denial, unintelligible etc. You leave yourself wide open to a barrage of information which can be then referenced, cited and thrown at you to show you why your "belief" is simply invalid or not relevant to anything other than personal subjective opinion. You've ducked the burden of proof.

Positives:

Who cares?

Quote:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof


Conclusion:

A lot of theists (some incredibly articulate, well-read, intelligent and logical) immerse themselves head to toe in passionate debate defending their faith. The motivation is clearly not one of faith. It is how others view faith that is more important to them. It's doesn't exhibit any faith whatsoever. It is the opposite to having faith. There is a million and one arguments you can come up to defend the "notion" of faith, moralistic, philosophical, anti-scientific, even mathematical (as I have also seen on one instance - and it was actually quite good). None are worth anything. Even if they succeed.

"Apologetics" are correctly titled.

A priest is should dress as a priest. He has no obligation or duty or motivation for dressing any other way. In being answerable, agreeable or even servile to science, fact or law (The Archbishop of Canterbury for example), then the man (father, not doctor or professor etc) is in the wrong job. It's not his job to be statesman for logic. It it his job to administer to people with faith. The proposition that "That wall is clearly black! Accept it and admit it or you will not be taken seriously!" Is not the man of faith's problem. Should he answer, "I have faith that the wall is white" (and we know the response) "It's clearly black, there's evidence, you are ridiculous..." The man of true faith, should still answer: "So what?"

Reason being: He is not there to tell them that it is white. But rather; his confidence or trust in his belief should be enough for him. It is like Gandhi said, "Nobody can hurt me without my permission." This is faith.

Faith is not a reckoning answerable nor accountable to evidence. It doesn't have any belonging there. It is a confidence of belief. If it is to be respected (by oneself, the only party relevant) then it does not answer to evidence. It owes nothing to evidence. The evidence cannot show that the belief or faith in it was in fact incorrec. The thing believed in may be removed, but the belief of and indeed faith of was never in question.

Is this "blind faith"?

Yes. "Seeing is believing" is not a prerequisite of the truly faithful. Picture a person kneeling in devout, sentient, sincere prayer or meditation, in a church, or temple or at home. Are his eyes open? Should "Blind faith" be an insult? Or testament to its authenticity? Aren't some things better known, felt and emotionally experienced without looking?



Is this a highly unintelligible and even pig-headed way to view the world?

If you truly believe something - If you truly, whole heartedly and univocally, passionately believe in something good, pure and correct, then you already have the faith required to answer that question. In the case of how this may effect the world: If it is something truly good, pure and correct that the faith was placed in, then it can only do what is says on the packet.

For those of a faithful nature:

Matthew XXI 21 wrote:

"If you shall have faith, and stagger not, and if you shall say to this mountain, take up and throw thy self into the sea, it shall be done."


Popular translation come cliche/idiom: "Faith moves mountains".

For those of a non faithful nature:

Are those of a faith a problem? Are they not "harmless"? Have you ever had a person with true faith, following the correct definition, causing you any problems?

For example, if you took an argument or debate to the Dali Llama, do you think he would engage you? Probably not. Why not? Because he's stubborn? Arrogant? Apathetic? Self-righteous? Ignorant? Or because he has a wisdom of self and confidence of faith that finds the very proposition amusingly absurd?

The truth is, you've never had a problem with people of true faith. And I can safely say that without even asking about you about it because a person of true faith couldn't be willfully involved in impeding on you. It is the unfaithful who attack you and the unfaithful who feel the need to defend themselves against you. Agree? Those people prove this by doing so. Those people, by all means, have lots of fun with Smile

Lapsed Faith/ Struggling Faith:

If faith was once there and it is no longer, was the faith itself false or was your ability to hold onto it weakened? Some may claim that it was never there (then). That's false. "If faith was once there"... It's the same as saying, "Hi, I'm a 25 year old. I was never ten years old." So it was never actually "true" faith then? Although there a strong argument for that, there's is a really simple one against it: "Ye hath little faith" is still some faith.

Is there such a thing as "No Faith"? Well, what about "safe faith"? Faith that you will wake up tomorrow. Or that you will live to see 80. "I probably will" is safe faith. No, it's probability! What, like the stochastic process? So the difference between average faith and really weak faith is circumstance, outlook and requirement. Let's look at what some people regard as revisited faith:

wikipedia wrote:

The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an aphorism used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, all people will believe in or hope for a higher power.


It is an aphorism (a terse saying embodying a general truth) because it makes theists go, "ah haha, true!" But it is horribly flawed instantly: The "Faith" in deathbed recants is more likely just "fear", Right? Compulsory Faith? Get out of town.

What it does do, quite successfully, is remove the perception of perceived eternal youth, immortality, ego, goals, meaning, circumstance, knowledge and ironically options. When I say options, I mean in removing all, it actually gives you but a simple one.

C.S Lewis said, "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods"

It removes all of these contributory factors (arguably "afflictions") which can cause a person to believe that they have lost all faith or have none at all. So what then? Hope?

It gives you a very clear perspective of a junction. There's two roads; one goes one way, the other is a dead end. You can either look towards the road that you can travel or bang your head against a brick wall. You're still alive and you do have an option. Do you not become more faithful? You're hardly afraid anymore: You're just about dead anyway. In that scenario, I see it as sort of a hand reached out to you in water you're drowning in.

A lot of people claim, "I had faith, but I was lot more naive then. I was a lot younger, more optimistic, idealistic, a lot less travelled. I have since become educated. I have read so much to the contrary. I have become wise and have many life experiences and I am now an intelligent adult I don't believe in Santa Claus anymore". To generalize: They then go and buy a lottery ticket. These people are usually about 20 to 30 years old with the majority of their intellectual life in front of them - they presume. So is that an unfair assessment? Probably...

Oscar Wilde once joked, "Skepticism is the beginning of Faith."

My understanding of this is as follows, Christians name Christ as their true God via skepticism of Allah, Buddha, Zeus, etc. A lot people who believe in Intelligent Design are skeptical that the Earth being the only planet in billions to evolve life was just a fluke. Atheists, via skepticism see this creator God that theists speak of as nothing/void/fantasy and hold on to that position firmly. Agnostics have skepticism which doesn't take a liking to any theistic assertions. It's that "F word" again - that I keep imagining people thinking whenever I allude to this. Smile

Wilde was right on the money. Belief is impossible without disbelief. Disbelief is impossible without belief. Faith is the confidence of such. Everyone has some faith, even those who have faith in not having any. Or faith that their faith is in themselves only. Or that faith that faith is useless to them. Or faith that fighting over God is true faith. Or faith that all this religion stuff is bananas. Or faith that any supposition arrived at can belived. But fortunately, for the faithful: never faith that faith itself exists, because that is the only impossibility.

So how do we get to "True" faith?

"Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation." - D. Elton Trueblood

Now if you take that and add the skepticism that it needs to be extraordinary, it works beautifully.



Source of Images
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Wilde was right on the money. Belief is impossible without disbelief. Disbelief is impossible without belief. Faith is the confidence of such. Everyone has some faith, even those who have faith in not having any. Or faith that their faith is in themselves only. Or that faith that faith is useless to them. Or faith that fighting over God is true faith. Or faith that all this religion stuff is bananas. Or faith that any supposition arrived at can belived. But fortunately, for the faithful: never faith that faith itself exists, because that is the only impossibility.
I completely believe in this. Think Krishnamurthi also made some good points about the truth lying in the direction of embracing both belief and disbelief. I also get the notion that the harder someone fights for one's position, the more it seems to enforce the contra position, along the example you mentioned of the evangelists. Also fits in with Nietzsche's looking into the abyss.

OK, this is now the skeptical in me talking. Is the guy walking the rope for real? Or was it air-brushed? Beautiful photos, but can't figure out the logic of a person doing that. Shocked Also, shouldn't the rope be bending a little, or is it, and I can't see it properly?
LostOverThere
deanhills wrote:
OK, this is now the skeptical in me talking. Is the guy walking the rope for real? Or was it air-brushed? Beautiful photos, but can't figure out the logic of a person doing that. Shocked Also, shouldn't the rope be bending a little, or is it, and I can't see it properly?

Off topic, but just taking a guess, the lighting on the person looks like it may be fake.
Dialogist
LostOverThere wrote:

Off topic


Ha, all my threads are. I have one about techno music in Religion and Philosophy and one about slack-lining in faith. I don't mind at all, as long as the moderators don't, about what people would rather post.

Deanhills wrote:

I also get the notion that the harder someone fights for one's position, the more it seems to enforce the contra position


I often see a lot of that, I'm often in a lot of that. I usually see on going arguments like two people building a wall. They start facing each other, either side of the foundation and one of them puts a brick down. Looks at the other one. The opposing builder puts his down. Looks at the other one. They take turns putting bricks down, building up the case. They get to knee height and the wall is taking form encouraging more bricks. They keep taking turns until they are at waist height. By now they are sick of the sight of each other but keep building faster and with less effort or meaning. They have now lost sight of each other completely trying to build the biggest wall. They are now on ladders competing on either side to build the bigger wall. Up the wall of separation goes into the clouds. It's a fine structure. But the thing is, it's the exact same wall built by two and it's completely dense, redundant and useless for anything other than division.

Deanhills wrote:

OK, this is now the skeptical in me talking. Is the guy walking the rope for real?


Oh yeah, it's real. Dean Potter has made his name for this kind of stuff. He's famous in the climbing world for his "boundary pushing". He is slack-lining there with no tether.

http://www.prana.com/blog/2009/05/22/dean-potter-on-the-line-solo-at-taft-point/

You can click on the pics for full resolution.

Read the comments beneath to see how well received it is. But they all already know about him. Some climbers are outraged while some respect him a great deal. That's why I used his pic here. Not because I think he is an example of faith (I do, on first impressions) its because I'm also extremely skeptical, not of the authenticity, but of whether this is faith and confidence of self or just an adrenaline fueled death fantasy. The other thing is, look at how composed and relaxed he is. He's doing that 'just one foot' thing on purpose. It makes me slightly uneasy to look at it.
deanhills
LostOverThere wrote:
Off topic, but just taking a guess, the lighting on the person looks like it may be fake.
Right! Now that you mention it, that must have been that looked so "off", just could not put my finger on it. Very Happy

Dialogist wrote:
I often see a lot of that, I'm often in a lot of that. I usually see on going arguments like two people building a wall. They start facing each other, either side of the foundation and one of them puts a brick down. Looks at the other one. The opposing builder puts his down. Looks at the other one. They take turns putting bricks down, building up the case. They get to knee height and the wall is taking form encouraging more bricks. They keep taking turns until they are at waist height. By now they are sick of the sight of each other but keep building faster and with less effort or meaning. They have now lost sight of each other completely trying to build the biggest wall. They are now on ladders competing on either side to build the bigger wall. Up the wall of separation goes into the clouds. It's a fine structure. But the thing is, it's the exact same wall built by two and it's completely dense, redundant and useless for anything other than division.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Awesome analogy! Really enjoyable. Would be nice in a rap song!

Dialogist wrote:
Oh yeah, it's real. Dean Potter has made his name for this kind of stuff. He's famous in the climbing world for his "boundary pushing". He is slack-lining there with no tether.

http://www.prana.com/blog/2009/05/22/dean-potter-on-the-line-solo-at-taft-point/

You can click on the pics for full resolution.

Read the comments beneath to see how well received it is. But they all already know about him. Some climbers are outraged while some respect him a great deal. That's why I used his pic here. Not because I think he is an example of faith (I do, on first impressions) its because I'm also extremely skeptical, not of the authenticity, but of whether this is faith and confidence of self or just an adrenaline fueled death fantasy. The other thing is, look at how composed and relaxed he is. He's doing that 'just one foot' thing on purpose. It makes me slightly uneasy to look at it.
You're right. It looked too easy, and that got me suspicious. But all of the comment seems to authenticate it, so I'd better believe it! I can imagine that some of the more serious mountaineers must be offended by this. Sort of makes their serious world into something of a joke. But must admit, it looks much more interesting and scenic, than the guys who are doing it across skyscrapers.
Dialogist
It could be fake, I just have no reason to doubt it personally as it's not that big of a deal to him. It's no different to stuff he normally does. This is him nearly dying. But he nearly dies every day. And from what I've read, he's really good at not dying, well he must be, because he's not dead.



That's with no tether too. But yeah, we look at them as pics as regular joes. Some of the pro climbers in the comments section were saying that this is the wrong way of looking at it. It's just what he does.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
That's with no tether too. But yeah, we look at them as pics as regular joes. Some of the pro climbers in the comments section were saying that this is the wrong way of looking at it. It's just what he does.
Wonder whether it is an adrenaline addiction of sorts? Some people claim that they only really feel alive when they are staring death in the face? Smile
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
That's with no tether too. But yeah, we look at them as pics as regular joes. Some of the pro climbers in the comments section were saying that this is the wrong way of looking at it. It's just what he does.
Wonder whether it is an adrenaline addiction of sorts? Some people claim that they only really feel alive when they are staring death in the face? Smile


I'm not sure that's fair because it sort of paints them as careless and reckless and from what I see, when he's out on the rope, he's completely centered, at peace, poised and confident. The level of concentration required there makes chess look impulsive. I have a friend who is a really good skateboarder and I know adrenaline is addictive. But for him, and probably with all extreme sports, the thrill becomes considerably lessened by a) how good you are and b) how old hat it all is to you. I mean he does the handrails and what not. Nothing is ever big enough. Once he's done one thing, he can't go smaller. That's just going backwards. To us, it's lunacy. And for me or you to walk out on that rope fresh in from the world, it would be. And death awaits that. But likewise, for him to... I dunno... Just simply waltz into your home uninvited and start going through all your stuff. He could arguably get more hurt doing that. Relativity?
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
I'm not sure that's fair because it sort of paints them as careless and reckless and from what I see, when he's out on the rope, he's completely centered, at peace, poised and confident. The level of concentration required there makes chess look impulsive.
OK, I get it. Still can't figure out however why he is doing it though? What would his motive be?
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
I'm not sure that's fair because it sort of paints them as careless and reckless and from what I see, when he's out on the rope, he's completely centered, at peace, poised and confident. The level of concentration required there makes chess look impulsive.
OK, I get it. Still can't figure out however why he is doing it though? What would his motive be?


Ego. Attention seeking due to childhood inadequacy. You saw how awesome the pics look and how much debate it causes. That's why he does it.
riderwear45
I'm not sure it's just because it kind of paints them as reckless and foolhardy, and what I see when he is on the rope, it is perfectly centered, peace, tranquility and confidence. The degree of concentration required makes chess look impulsive. I have a friend who is a really good skateboarder, and I know the adrenaline is addictive. But for him, and probably all extreme sports, the voltage will be significantly reduced by one) that you are good and b) the age cap, that's all for you. I think it tracks and what not. Nothing is ever big enough. When he does something, he can not go lower. It's just go back. For us, it's madness. And for me or go on the rope in fresh from around the world, it would be. And death awaits. But for him ... I do not know ... Just roll in your house uninvited and began to review all your business. He could probably get harder to do. Relativity?



Spam Links Removed. -ocalhoun
Related topics
Have faith on you -my poem
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
islam is...
irony: Liberal Church May Lose Funds Over Sermon
A question of faith - is faith immoral?
Faith and Logic
The God argument: Is there a God?
Why can Atheists express their faith, but not Christians?
Mother Theresa Doubted the Existence of God
Do you have any faith that there is a "soul"
Something in which we can ALL have faith!?!?
How to Grow A Positive Faith Forum
Does atheists' commitment to science require faith?
Theism vs faith
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.