How do you intelligent people possibly choose "faith"?

[Royal Heart]

Because I'm very curious. This question isn't really directed to people who believe because they have some vague happy feelings about God. This is directed specifically to those who aren't the kind to jump to conclusions, to utilize sound methods of reason to reach decisions, who insist on empyrical data before accepting anything as being definably real. I know you're out there, and I want to know why, if you're willing to indulge me.

How can you be so sure? And if you're not so sure, why should I follow you?

 

[Horschallen]

Maybe it is because, undoubtedly and evidently, intelligent people really do know better.

 

[Willie Boy]

Sadly, even if I were to share with you everything I've seen that has led me to my faith, without having seen it for yourself you could not possibly accept it and would therefore discount it (even though you could not disprove it). As such I will not waste my time to try to make you understand. But I will leave you with this thought: At some point in your life you come to a point where you have to believe in something that can not be proven 100% without a doubt. The whole debate over whether or not God exists is an example - no matter which side you choose, you are acting on faith. The existence (or Nonexistence) of God can not be empirically proven so the adherents to either side must take make their choice on faith based on the opinions and beliefs of others.

 

[Royal Heart]

As such I will not waste my time to try to make you understand.

Fair enough.

The whole debate over whether or not God exists is an example - no matter which side you choose, you are acting on faith.

I think this is actually a misconception about atheism. It's generally perceived to be a kind of anti-faith. If we were to reduce it to symbols you could say that belief in God is the number 1. The misconception is that atheism is represented by -1 when, really, it's 0.

The existence (or Nonexistence) of God can not be empirically proven so the adherents to either side must take make their choice on faith based on the opinions and beliefs of others.

This is an interesting point because the methods used to arrive at the decision to believe or not are used in other areas of our life as well. We use the same methods to decide if we should buy a used car, or one house or another, to eat organic or not, which people we make friends with and those we keep away from.

We apply these methods in all areas of our lives and, most people, tend to arrive at their conclusions using systems of reason and logic before arriving at their decision; but this methodology is often thrown out when it becomes to the very specific topic of religion, and no one can really explain why.

We would seldom pick just any used car, agree to a date with a random stranger we know nothing about or pick at random which college one is going to attend (should one even bother with post-secondary education). Of course there are people who really do operate that way, but we're talking about what most people tend to do with these areas of their life.

It's a tough question to answer, often because we don't really want to look at the reason, and that aversion is powerful.

 

[Telstra]

I won't try to convince you of anything, but, I will tell you what I think is the best source for the kind of information you seek. It is the book "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies. I am totally blown away by this man's knowledge and his ability to weave together so many disparate sources of information. He just speaks to me. Don't be put off by the title. It comes from a quote by Hawking, that, if we could create an understandable "theory of everything" (especially reconciling quantum theory with relativity) we would be "Looking at the Mind of God".
He is a cosmologist from Australia. GENIfuckingUS!!!!!!!!!
He travels through a staggering amount of information, beginning with "How do we KNOW what we THINK we know" and moves on from there. I think that it's a very good place to start.
I try to use logic as the basis of whether I believe in a higher power--> most compelling argument for God's existence to me is prolly that we are able to delve into the features of our universe using mathematics, yet there is no evolutionary advantage to having the ability to perform the higher math equations required. Also, it can be shown mathematically that there are values for things like the ratio of the strong nuclear force to the electromagnetic force that must be precisely what they are to an unbelievably fine degree and that so many of these values must be exactly what they are for a universe with any order to exist. The only alternative explanation for cosmologists is that there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to be in the only (nearly) one that has order.
However, at a certain point, I make the leap of faith. It comes from the incredibly good feeling I get by helping people. (I go to a very poor third world country 3-4 times a year to treat people and do surgery. (I'm a doc). Good luck if you choose to begin this journey (the book)

haven't read that book.

Did Paul say anything about homosexuality ?

 

[Royal Heart]

yet there is no evolutionary advantage to having the ability to perform the higher math equations required

As a neurology nerd I disagree with this. Standing up, for humans, is a deceptively complex affair. Just standing. You don't have to be moving or doing anything, but your brain is constantly calculating and recalculating everything from weight distribution, which joints are bending and how much, how your spine is aligned - your brain constantly moves your muscles in minor ways at all times just to make sure you don't fall over. The amount and kind of math involved is ridiculous, and it's all done without our direct conscious awareness of it.

Also, it can be shown mathematically that there are values for things like the ratio of the strong nuclear force to the electromagnetic force that must be precisely what they are to an unbelievably fine degree and that so many of these values must be exactly what they are for a universe with any order to exist.

I don't see why this means that God must exist, though. Systems of complete and unapologetic chaos will, on their own, without any external influence, develop systems of order. These incredibly complex systems are never designed. They emerge entirely on their own. It's mind-blowing.

The only alternative explanation for cosmologists is that there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to be in the only (nearly) one that has order.

There's some contention among physicists about that. The "multi-verse" idea also comes from several other theories as well and is not an isolated concept. There's an idea in string theory that states our Universe is a super-massive string across which the Universe plays itself out. If this is the case then our string-universe isn't likely to be the only one. We can't prove that these strings exist, however, but the math is impressive.

This idea more often than not comes from a misinterpretation of the observer effect in quantum physics which states that the act of observing collapses a wave-function into quantifiable reality. Some have taken this idea and run amock with it, stating that since, before the observation, all possible quantum states exist simultaneously (which isn't completely incorrect) and so there must be infinite universes (this is grossly incorrect).

However, at a certain point, I make the leap of faith. It comes from the incredibly good feeling I get by helping people. (I go to a very poor third world country 3-4 times a year to treat people and do surgery. (I'm a doc). Good luck if you choose to begin this journey (the book)

That's really cool of you, Marco. I really have to commend this kind of work and I stand in awe of your virtuous qualities.

I can understand that the feeling of helping people who really need help can't really be translated into words. Does that elation lead to your faith, or did your faith lead you to do that kind of work? Do you think the two (elation and faith) have to be connected, or do you choose to connect them in your own life?

 

[hotatlboi]

The existence (or Nonexistence) of God can not be empirically proven

While that is true, most of the holy books the major world religions are based on can be judged empirically.

For example, the Bible has so many errors in it that to claim it is the work of an all knowing deity simply borders on the delusional imo.

Now, if you are just saying you believe in the general concept of a supreme being, then I really have no issue with that, as there is nothing that can really be judged factually about that as you say.

 

[Royal Heart]

While that is true, most of the holy books the major world religions are based on can be judged empirically.

I disagree. The Holy Books themselves claim their own veracity and so the only way you could prove their validity is using their own terms and "evidence", which is just a form of circular logic that ends up defeating itself.

There is nothing that can really be judged factually about that as you say.

We can, however, ask why it's useful to make those religious assumptions, and why it's useful to develop a world view based on those assumptions. You could take it further and ask why such a world view is superior to views which have lead to democratic models, the internet, modern medicine, et cetera.

 

[Royal Heart]

I think that's sensible. Let's drop the physics and return to the original topic.

 

[hotatlboi]

I disagree. The Holy Books themselves claim their own veracity and so the only way you could prove their validity is using their own terms and "evidence", which is just a form of circular logic that ends up defeating itself.

Huh? You're saying we can't use any outside evidence? That's absurd.

If something claims its own veracity on everything but then makes a statement that we KNOW to be false through other means, then that claim is obviously false.

If I were to write a mathematical treatise claiming to be the sum of all correct knowledge on mathematics but stated on page 1 that 2 + 2 = 5, you would judge my claim absurd. That's what I'm saying.

The Bible makes so many demonstrably false statements (like that insects have 4 legs, or that rabbits chew their cud, etc) that there is simply no rational basis to hold it's claim as the revelation from an all knowing deity correct.

 

[Royal Heart]

Arguing the validity of the Holy Books isn't this thread's topic. I should not have brought it up as that's better saved for another thread entirely. I wish to avoid digression from the topic.

 

[Telstra]

How do you intelligent people possibly choose "faith"?

I can't explain it but everyone choose "faith" if they are alive.

 

[hotatlboi]

Arguing the validity of the Holy Books isn't this thread's topic. I should not have brought it up as that's better saved for another thread entirely. I wish to avoid digression from the topic.

That is central to the topic. You are saying how do you choose faith. Faith in a God? Well MOST people who are religious have faith in a God based on their faith in a supposed revelation from that God. That is the essential basis for their faith so it would be the answer to your question. For many people if you ask them "why do you have faith in God that he exists", they will say "because the Bible says it and I believe the Bible" or the Koran etc.

I'm saying the question of faith in that case often reduces to one of simple logic. You can't logically say "I have faith it is true" when it is demonstrably false. Faith is belief without evidence, but only a fool would "believe" in something with evidence to the contrary.

I'm saying there are specific levels of faith. If you just have faith in a supposed higher being of some sort, that isn't something that can be approached empirically in most cases. But if your faith is based on a physical manifestation of something (as a holy book is), then it often is.

 

[Willie Boy]

For example, the Bible has so many errors in it that to claim it is the work of an all knowing deity simply borders on the delusional imo.

I have heard this stated many times by many people and always ask for examples of such errors. To this day I have yet to have any such errors offered up. Maybe you will be the one to do so?

 

[Telstra]

That is central to the topic. You are saying how do you choose faith. Faith in a God? Well MOST people who are religious have faith in a God based on their faith in a supposed revelation from that God. That is the essential basis for their faith so it would be the answer to your question. For many people if you ask them "why do you have faith in God that he exists", they will say "because the Bible says it and I believe the Bible" or the Koran etc.

I'm saying the question of faith in that case often reduces to one of simple logic. You can't logically say "I have faith it is true" when it is demonstrably false. Faith is belief without evidence, but only a fool would "believe" in something with evidence to the contrary.

I'm saying there are specific levels of faith. If you just have faith in a supposed higher being of some sort, that isn't something that can be approached empirically in most cases. But if your faith is based on a physical manifestation of something (as a holy book is), then it often is.

Everyone don't know exactly what god is.

Everyone have faith in something. Some choose to call it god and some choose to call it something. I choose to call it something because i don't really know what god is or mean.

 

[hotatlboi]

I have heard this stated many times by many people and always ask for examples of such errors. To this day I have yet to have any such errors offered up. Maybe you will be the one to do so?

I mentioned two in my last post. I don't want to post a lot of detail on that here because the OP requested that the topic be kept to the more basic question of faith, but I could make another thread if you want to see more.

 

[Royal Heart]

MOST people who are religious have faith in a God based on their faith in a supposed revelation from that God.

So people who are used to making their decisions made on a system of reason choose faith because the object of their faith (God) has proven its existence to that person?

Off-Topic: I would be interested in a thread dedicated to pointing out Biblical contradictions and errors.

 

[Willie Boy]

I mentioned two in my last post. I don't want to post a lot of detail on that here because the OP requested that the topic be kept to the more basic question of faith, but I could make another thread if you want to see more.

Could you point out the "errors" that are in the Bible that you posted? There don't seem to be any mentioned.

That is central to the topic. You are saying how do you choose faith. Faith in a God? Well MOST people who are religious have faith in a God based on their faith in a supposed revelation from that God. That is the essential basis for their faith so it would be the answer to your question. For many people if you ask them "why do you have faith in God that he exists", they will say "because the Bible says it and I believe the Bible" or the Koran etc.

I'm saying the question of faith in that case often reduces to one of simple logic. You can't logically say "I have faith it is true" when it is demonstrably false. Faith is belief without evidence, but only a fool would "believe" in something with evidence to the contrary.

I'm saying there are specific levels of faith. If you just have faith in a supposed higher being of some sort, that isn't something that can be approached empirically in most cases. But if your faith is based on a physical manifestation of something (as a holy book is), then it often is.

 

[hotatlboi]

Could you point out the "errors" that are in the Bible that you posted? There don't seem to be any mentioned.

The post before that. I'll make another thread later though.

 

[hotatlboi]

So people who are used to making their decisions made on a system of reason choose faith because the object of their faith (God) has proven its existence to that person?

Yes they like to feel that their faith is based on something tangible. So if they can rationalize to themselves that some holy book does actually represent the words of a deity, that will often form their connection of their faith to the physical world based on reason.

If they can see the Bible or the Koran as something that plausibly could be written by a deity, they see the claim it was as not far fetched.

I had a long argument with Kulindahr on this in another thread on here. His basic claim was "if 'God' exists and he were to communicate with humanity, I find it plausible that this communication would look something like the Bible", or something to that effect.