My Problem With Faith

[Defiant47]

It's been a long time since I've truly participated in a religious discussion, let alone started one. Now I feel like doing it again for a bit.

Let's talk faith. Let's talk religion.
Obviously if you don't want to talk about these things, if you don't feel comfortable, or if anything spouted against your faith is very offensive to you, feel free to not participate and just move on.

I'm here to discuss my problem with faith. Now astute posters may have noticed how my title is no long "faith is a sin", and although it still feels like one, my zeal has considerably decreased. But maybe that's just because I've been leaving the issue alone and not worrying about it. So rather than phrasing this as "this is why faith is a sin" or "this is why you are stupid", I'll show it as something that simply continues to irk and bother me.



So what is my problem with faith? First, let's get a few things clear about faith.

Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof. And I mean concrete proof, not "my water bottle isn't where I last remember putting it, showing proof of ghosts". Please don't start arguing that your religious faith or belief does not require faith, I've already conducted a poll a while back showing that somewhere around or above 90% of religious people believe faith is necessary for their religious views. You need faith for your religion.

Let's also talk about what faith is not. Faith is not driving your car with the faith that others are licensed and aren't going to kill you. That's more of a calculated risk: chances are likely that they are licensed, and it's not like you have any other choice of how to live your life. Faith is not asking your friend to be there for you or to provide you with something. If it's a total stranger, in a way yes, but for a friend no. That's more of a trust that has been proven over a time of friendship.

Faith is something akin to believing in fairies despite the fact that there is no proof of them. It is believing in that you will magically feel happier if you send me $500 just because I said so. We all agree that this is, more or less stupid.

Yet we apply the same kind of faith when it comes to religious beliefs and believing in God. What's different here? The difference is that it's faith in God. I mean, we're talking about the almighty here. It's completely not analogous to say randomly deciding to have faith in gnomes living below the Earth despite you having no proof.

I will next outline my exactly problem with this kind of faith. This kind of faith is necessary for just about everything religious. It is necessary for the basic tenets, the stories, and so on. It is necessary for prayer, since statistically analyzing prayer shows no evidence of divine intervention (meaning there's no concrete empirical proof of God's existence, but we take the fact that prayer is effective on faith, faith in God). And so on. Please don't say "well this part doesn't require faith" because at the end of the line, there are many things that do, and where a priest would simply say "for that you need faith, my son".

To make it easier for me I will be talking towards Christianity. Although I don't want to single any religion out or make it seem like I'm picking on Christianity, it is the religion that I am most familiar with, and it will make certain parts easier to explain, such as saying the Bible rather than an nondescript holy book.



My problem with faith is this: you do not have faith in God. How does this work? Well there has to be a first principle. There has to be a reason you believe in your certain God.

Maybe you read the Bible and now you take it as the word of God. Maybe you had a religious experience and now you believe in God. The problem is, neither of these situations mean that you have faith in God. You must first have faith that the Bible is true. You must first have faith that your religious experience was meaningful and non-delusional. Neither of these is faith in God.


I hand you a holy book. In the holy book is what is claimed to be the word of God, and basically explaining it (you know, holy book). The contents of the holy book are mostly lacking in any empirical proof or are unprovable. Therefore you'd need faith. I ask you to have faith because this is God we're talking about. But the problem is that you wouldn't be having faith in God, you'd be having faith in the book being true. This is not faith in God, this is faith in a book that might well be the work of man, rather than the word of God. Once you take the leap of faith that the foundations of your beliefs are not based on non-divine material, then you move on to the divine.
(A similar analogy can be constructed for a religious experience)

This is the logical step that bothers me the most. You must first have faith, without proof, in non-divine components. The bible is not divine. It is only divine once you accept it and have faith in it as true. This piece of paper with the writing "God exists" is not divine. It is only divine once you accept it and have faith in it as true. Your religious experience is not divine; it is only a random thought, coincidence, or what have you, until you accept it as divine.

But wait, you say, how do you know that the Bible is not divine or that my religious experience was not divinely inspired. I don't. But neither do you the opposite until you take it on faith. You must first accept something as true, of which you have no proof of being divine or not. Your belief and faith in divinity then stems from that.

This of course, begs the question of how would you ever know whether something is divine. My beliefs as a strong agnostic are that divinity is unknowable, so I can't help you there. But my problem with religious faith is based on the first principle behind the faith requiring faith/belief in something for which there is no proof of its divinity.


So what's the problem with that? Well, it's that although it may be internally consistent, the fundamental cause of the belief system is flawed. Sure, once I accept the "Book of Pixies" (making this up), it all makes sense that pixies exist and are interfering with our lives even though we can't see them. But I must first accept something that might not be true.


I guess this narrows down exactly why I am a strong agnostic and believe divinity is unknowable: because I believe faith in God is unattainable.

*note the "belief" clause... I do not presume my logic to be the be-all and end-all of truths, but it makes sense to me

What are your thoughts on this matter?
I'm sure there are plenty of holes to poke in my logic, my assumptions (especially in defining and describing faith), and my details. Feel free.

 

[Earthling]

I find it disturbing that has become a meme a new poster is so aware of and would choose to make posts on...

At any rate, the OP is a lot to take in and I'm not sure of my thoughts about your viewpoint. I certainly wish this thread goes well and sees interesting discussion, and I don't want to pollute this discussion with silly jokes or references since you put a lot of time and thought into it. While you are certainly right in that for many people faith must be in something there is otherwise no proof of, it is a strong concept that is likewise very entrenched in their lives. Not everyone has ever considered various philosophies or theology as much as others who have devoted a good deal of their lives to it - though "faith" is something shared as a whole, perhaps just as important a distinction is what people have faith in. Thanks for sharing your views.

 

[Gelion]

It's been a long time since I've truly participated in a religious discussion, let alone started one. Now I feel like doing it again for a bit.

I take interest in your posts, so it should be an interesting read. Lets go!

Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof.

Lets pause for a second there. Was there proof that Earth revolves around the Sun? That living organisms are made of cells? That this person is in fact a liar?
Proof, firstly, comes with knowledge and experience. The more you can explain the world around yourself through some system (i.e. logic) the more you are capable in finding "basis" for the answer to your questions.
Secondly, most people are not bothering enough to find proof for elements of faith. Theologists or wisemen do that. You could also find proof if you put your efforts into it. You just have to find another frame of reference than "logic". Conscience is usually a good indicator.
Lastly, faith requires faith. Love requires love, not "I love this person because he has such nice ears". You are not supposed to substitute faith with logic or proof. Faith is faith.

Faith is something akin to believing in fairies despite the fact that there is no proof of them. It is believing in that you will magically feel happier if you send me $500 just because I said so. We all agree that this is, more or less stupid.

Again, it depends on what kind of religion you follow. Most of "proofs" for religion that you are talking about involve the spiritual world and by nature are very scary. Ask some "fathers" about "proof" if you are really interested.

Yet we apply the same kind of faith when it comes to religious beliefs and believing in God. What's different here? The difference is that it's faith in God. I mean, we're talking about the almighty here. It's completely not analogous to say randomly deciding to have faith in gnomes living below the Earth despite you having no proof.

My conscience tells me gnomes are fiction

I will next outline my exactly problem with this kind of faith. This kind of faith is necessary for just about everything religious. It is necessary for the basic tenets, the stories, and so on. It is necessary for prayer, since statistically analyzing prayer shows no evidence of divine intervention (meaning there's no concrete empirical proof of God's existence, but we take the fact that prayer is effective on faith, faith in God).

How is statistics used in analyzing prayer impact is beyond me

And so on. Please don't say "well this part doesn't require faith" because at the end of the line, there are many things that do, and where a priest would simply say "for that you need faith, my son".

Faith is Trust. Trust is Love. "All you need is Love"...."John Lennon, smart man, shot in the back, very sad" (last part is from a well-known movie )

Maybe you read the Bible and now you take it as the word of God. Maybe you had a religious experience

What do you mean by that? Having a prayer? Or surviving a serious crash on the highway? Or maybe the moment when you understand that you're supposed to do certain things in life?

and now you believe in God. The problem is, neither of these situations mean that you have faith in God. You must first have faith that the Bible is true. You must first have faith that your religious experience was meaningful and non-delusional. Neither of these is faith in God.

I think I follow what you mean....

I hand you a holy book. In the holy book is what is claimed to be the word of God, and basically explaining it (you know, holy book). The contents of the holy book are mostly lacking in any empirical proof or are unprovable. Therefore you'd need faith. I ask you to have faith because this is God we're talking about. But the problem is that you wouldn't be having faith in God, you'd be having faith in the book being true. This is not faith in God, this is faith in a book that might well be the work of man, rather than the word of God. Once you take the leap of faith that the foundations of your beliefs are not based on non-divine material, then you move on to the divine.
(A similar analogy can be constructed for a religious experience)

But I do no agree with you. Being religious (if you forgive the term) is like learning a profession or how to behave in a social situation. You grow from being a baby into a wise old man through the course of your life. At least you are supposed to. Books, prayers, experiences are there to change you into a person that would be closer to God. Faith is a process. "How can I be a Buddhist?" "By being a Buddhist."
To stress, the books are important, but what counts is whether you are able to understand what is written, not believing that every line of every text is authentic. It is not, lines were written by people, people make mistakes.

This is the logical step that bothers me the most. You must first have faith, without proof, in non-divine components. The bible is not divine. It is only divine once you accept it and have faith in it as true. This piece of paper with the writing "God exists" is not divine. It is only divine once you accept it and have faith in it as true. Your religious experience is not divine; it is only a random thought, coincidence, or what have you, until you accept it as divine.

Again, I addressed the "proof" above as best as I could.

But wait, you say, how do you know that the Bible is not divine or that my religious experience was not divinely inspired. I don't. But neither do you the opposite until you take it on faith. You must first accept something as true, of which you have no proof of being divine or not. Your belief and faith in divinity then stems from that.

This of course, begs the question of how would you ever know whether something is divine. My beliefs as a strong agnostic are that divinity is unknowable, so I can't help you there. But my problem with religious faith is based on the first principle behind the faith requiring faith/belief in something for which there is no proof of its divinity.

I think someone better qualified should deal with this part. I could only say that some people did believe (and still do) in so called "false" religions. Yes, you can be wrong about your faith/your choice of faith. Your only guide in that question of choice is you.

So what's the problem with that? Well, it's that although it may be internally consistent, the fundamental cause of the belief system is flawed. Sure, once I accept the "Book of Pixies" (making this up), it all makes sense that pixies exist and are interfering with our lives even though we can't see them. But I must first accept something that might not be true.


I guess this narrows down exactly why I am a strong agnostic and believe divinity is unknowable: because I believe faith in God is unattainable.

*note the "belief" clause... I do not presume my logic to be the be-all and end-all of truths, but it makes sense to me

What are your thoughts on this matter?
I'm sure there are plenty of holes to poke in my logic, my assumptions (especially in defining and describing faith), and my details. Feel free.

There's only one flaw in your logic. You are trying to "prove" religion with logic. You can't I tried to address some of the points, but I do not have a large background to boast. Perhaps someone else will explain more in detail. For myself, I am available for any clarifications.

 

[Death_Machine]

Faith is a personal thing to most people, I know it is to me. Sure there are the Bible thumpers who are every bit as ******** as the militant atheists. BFD.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof. And I mean concrete proof, not "my water bottle isn't where I last remember putting it, showing proof of ghosts". Please don't start arguing that your religious faith or belief does not require faith, I've already conducted a poll a while back showing that somewhere around or above 90% of religious people believe faith is necessary for their religious views. You need faith for your religion.

Let's also talk about what faith is not. Faith is not driving your car with the faith that others are licensed and aren't going to kill you. That's more of a calculated risk: chances are likely that they are licensed, and it's not like you have any other choice of how to live your life. Faith is not asking your friend to be there for you or to provide you with something. If it's a total stranger, in a way yes, but for a friend no. That's more of a trust that has been proven over a time of friendship.

Faith is something akin to believing in fairies despite the fact that there is no proof of them. It is believing in that you will magically feel happier if you send me $500 just because I said so. We all agree that this is, more or less stupid.

Yet we apply the same kind of faith when it comes to religious beliefs and believing in God. What's different here? The difference is that it's faith in God. I mean, we're talking about the almighty here. It's completely not analogous to say randomly deciding to have faith in gnomes living below the Earth despite you having no proof.

Interesting to say the least.

To make it easier for me I will be talking towards Christianity. Although I don't want to single any religion out or make it seem like I'm picking on Christianity, it is the religion that I am most familiar with, and it will make certain parts easier to explain, such as saying the Bible rather than an nondescript holy book.

Yes, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are pretty nondescript.

My problem with faith is this: you do not have faith in God. How does this work? Well there has to be a first principle. There has to be a reason you believe in your certain God.

Maybe you read the Bible and now you take it as the word of God. Maybe you had a religious experience and now you believe in God. The problem is, neither of these situations mean that you have faith in God. You must first have faith that the Bible is true. You must first have faith that your religious experience was meaningful and non-delusional. Neither of these is faith in God.

I hand you a holy book. In the holy book is what is claimed to be the word of God, and basically explaining it (you know, holy book). The contents of the holy book are mostly lacking in any empirical proof or are unprovable. Therefore you'd need faith. I ask you to have faith because this is God we're talking about. But the problem is that you wouldn't be having faith in God, you'd be having faith in the book being true. This is not faith in God, this is faith in a book that might well be the work of man, rather than the word of God. Once you take the leap of faith that the foundations of your beliefs are not based on non-divine material, then you move on to the divine.
(A similar analogy can be constructed for a religious experience)

This is the logical step that bothers me the most. You must first have faith, without proof, in non-divine components.

Lets stop right there. The bible as the official book of the Catholic Church did not exist until the last decade of the 4th century. That would be 360 years after Jesus. Before that Christians had no Bible and they yet they believed. Hmmm.... It would seem that either those early Christians were mistaken about their faith or you are simply wrong. In this case I have to side with the Christians. The rest of your argument now slides away.

 

[Camikaze]

Yet we apply the same kind of faith when it comes to religious beliefs and believing in God. What's different here? The difference is that it's faith in God. I mean, we're talking about the almighty here. It's completely not analogous to say randomly deciding to have faith in gnomes living below the Earth despite you having no proof.

Firstly I'll start that by saying that I'm a Christian, but I agree with a lot of what you say. But obviously not all of it. Particularly the bits assuming that the Bible is Christianity, which it most certainly is not.

But with this whole gnomes living under the earth thing. It would seem to make sense that there is some force in the universe that control stuff, but we can be reasonably certain that that force is not a bunch of gnomes underneath the earth. We can be reasonably certain it is not a bunch of fairies. But, we do not know what exactly it is. So we call it God. God doesn't necessarily refer to one particular mythical being (such as a gnome or fairy), although admittedly it does for some people. It refers to that force which people believe exists. Perhaps it is easier to understand that belief in the existence of some kind of force that is then labelled God, rather than in what you would regard as the mythical creature/being of 'God'. Tangibility is just applied to God (this force that is unknown) in order to make it more accessible for individuals, and easier for them to understand on a more personal level.

So, admittedly, you are right for some people who do sheerly believe in some Santa Claus figure in the sky, but what you say is not a general indictment of faith itself, so much as those individuals and their individual faith.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You just have to find another frame of reference than "logic". Conscience is usually a good indicator.

Veto!
Science suggest conscience is just some random feeling in the end designed to keep us alive. Mankind invented logic because it was realized that "conscience" can be fooled so easily that it is not worth much and hence can not make up the base for finding the "truth".

Lastly, faith requires faith. Love requires love, not "I love this person because he has such nice ears". You are not supposed to substitute faith with logic or proof. Faith is faith.

I don't understand. It is possible to state what love does require. This is a subject heavily reviewed by scientists all over the world.
Why can one not do the same with faith?

Lets stop right there. The bible as the official book of the Catholic Church did not exist until the last decade of the 4th century. That would be 360 years after Jesus. Before that Christians had no Bible and they yet they believed. Hmmm.... It would seem that either those early Christians were mistaken about their faith or you are simply wrong. In this case I have to side with the Christians. The rest of your argument now slides away.

Didn't the bible have predecessors? As far as I know several scriptures circulated before that. And if not a scripture than some missionary told you about it. It does not matter if the message is transfered via voice or text. Regarding Defiant47's point it's all the same and does not invalid his argumentation.

 

[dwaxe]

Firstly I'll start that by saying that I'm a Christian, but I agree with a lot of what you say. But obviously not all of it. Particularly the bits assuming that the Bible is Christianity, which it most certainly is not.

But with this whole gnomes living under the earth thing. It would seem to make sense that there is some force in the universe that control stuff, but we can be reasonably certain that that force is not a bunch of gnomes underneath the earth. We can be reasonably certain it is not a bunch of fairies. But, we do not know what exactly it is. So we call it God. God doesn't necessarily refer to one particular mythical being (such as a gnome or fairy), although admittedly it does for some people. It refers to that force which people believe exists. Perhaps it is easier to understand that belief in the existence of some kind of force that is then labelled God, rather than in what you would regard as the mythical creature/being of 'God'. Tangibility is just applied to God (this force that is unknown) in order to make it more accessible for individuals, and easier for them to understand on a more personal level.

So, admittedly, you are right for some people who do sheerly believe in some Santa Claus figure in the sky, but what you say is not a general indictment of faith itself, so much as those individuals and their individual faith.

The first bolded part is an argument from ignorance. You do not know exactly what causes x so you posit y and call it God? One thing I have faith in is that human understanding will increase, and human understanding has continually elucidated natural reasons for puzzling things. Every time a gap in knowledge is filled, that God has less places to hide. If you keep God there and say that he causes these natural reasons, that is an unnecessary multiplication of entities engendered only by provincial thought.

In the second part I bolded, you stated that making God tangible allows people to understand on a more personal level, and seem to think that this tangibility applied to god is not essential to understanding.

But you offered no reasoning why "some force in the universe that control stuff" should or even can be understood on a "personal level". The laws of thermodynamics are not understood on a "personal level". The laws of motion are not understood on a "personal level". None of the laws or forces of the universe are understood on a "personal level". So how do you understand "that force which people believe exists" on a "personal level" without making it tangible and/or anthropomorphizing it?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Didn't the bible have predecessors? As far as I know several scriptures circulated before that. And if not a scripture than some missionary told you about it. It does not matter if the message is transfered via voice or text. Regarding Defiant47's point it's all the same and does not invalid his argumentation.

The earliest known writings were the letters of Paul, but there is no evidence that they were distributed beyond their particular recipients during the early church. The first gospels were not written until maybe 50 years after Jesus died. In those early years oral tradition would have been the primary vehicle for spreading the word.

Now you are making the claim that either text or voice supports Defiant's argument that people cannot believe directly in god, but must go through some imperfect medium such as voice or text. First, Everything we experience is filtered through our senses and interpreted by our brain. It is a limitation of being human. Like all filtering processes, ours lets something through that it shouldn't and keeps other s out that might be beneficial. They are imperfect. A Christian might well say that the holy spirit inspires faith in god directly and such a force can bypass our normal filters and strike deep into our core being. It has no need for words or text. In our weakness we believe the words or text are the medium when they are in fact not.

 

[JohnRM]

I have faith that there is a God, but I will not attempt to understand or form an opinion about his nature. At times, I want to believe that any potential God is benevolent and other times, I cannot help feeling as though he is at best, apathetic, and at worst, cruel. That always leads me to having faith that there is more to this life and existence than I can possibly understand.

 

[Xyan]

My problem with faith is that "faith in abrahamic religions" is very different from "faith in non-abrahamic religions". But debaters rarely attempt to differentiate the two.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A Christian might well say that the holy spirit inspires faith in god directly and such a force can bypass our normal filters and strike deep into our core being. In our weakness we believe the words or text are the medium when they are in fact not.

And how should one know if it is really this way? In the past people were deeply convinced of almost anything imaginable. That Jews are evil, that ghosts live in the forest, that cows are holy, that wolves are holy, that women with red hair are evil... the list goes on forever. And I think it is fair to say that those believes could feel like a "strike deep into our core being" as well.
What gives a religious person the confidence to not be deluded by false spirital believes like so many others have been? What gives them the confidence that their holy books really are holy when so many people claimed the same about so many other "holy truths"?
You basically say "They just know". Others also just knew. Isn't the natural conclusion "people have the tendency to deeply delude them self" and not "People have this tendency, but it does not apply to my faith. It just doesn't"?

 

[Defiant47]

Lets pause for a second there. Was there proof that Earth revolves around the Sun? That living organisms are made of cells? That this person is in fact a liar?
Proof, firstly, comes with knowledge and experience. The more you can explain the world around yourself through some system (i.e. logic) the more you are capable in finding "basis" for the answer to your questions.

An interesting view. I mean proof from the scientific and empirical perspective. Certainly knowledge of God has no proof other than personal experiences and selective interpretations.

How is statistics used in analyzing prayer impact is beyond me

Check out www.godisimaginary.com

What do you mean by that? Having a prayer? Or surviving a serious crash on the highway? Or maybe the moment when you understand that you're supposed to do certain things in life?

Anything that religious people tout as "But I do have proof! Such and such religious experience".

But I do no agree with you. Being religious (if you forgive the term) is like learning a profession or how to behave in a social situation. You grow from being a baby into a wise old man through the course of your life. At least you are supposed to. Books, prayers, experiences are there to change you into a person that would be closer to God. Faith is a process. "How can I be a Buddhist?" "By being a Buddhist."
To stress, the books are important, but what counts is whether you are able to understand what is written, not believing that every line of every text is authentic. It is not, lines were written by people, people make mistakes.

That still concerns me in the issue of divinity. Non-divine texts cannot hope to explain or identify the divine.

Lets stop right there. The bible as the official book of the Catholic Church did not exist until the last decade of the 4th century. That would be 360 years after Jesus. Before that Christians had no Bible and they yet they believed. Hmmm.... It would seem that either those early Christians were mistaken about their faith or you are simply wrong. In this case I have to side with the Christians. The rest of your argument now slides away.

You've missed the point. That's why I didn't only say "Bible", I also said "religious experiences". The point is that you're putting your faith in something that you do not initially know is divine or have any proof that it is divine, that it is divine and from there your religion follows. Whether that's a book, an experience, or a goat, it doesn't matter.

Firstly I'll start that by saying that I'm a Christian, but I agree with a lot of what you say. But obviously not all of it. Particularly the bits assuming that the Bible is Christianity, which it most certainly is not.

But with this whole gnomes living under the earth thing. It would seem to make sense that there is some force in the universe that control stuff, but we can be reasonably certain that that force is not a bunch of gnomes underneath the earth. We can be reasonably certain it is not a bunch of fairies. But, we do not know what exactly it is. So we call it God. God doesn't necessarily refer to one particular mythical being (such as a gnome or fairy), although admittedly it does for some people. It refers to that force which people believe exists. Perhaps it is easier to understand that belief in the existence of some kind of force that is then labelled God, rather than in what you would regard as the mythical creature/being of 'God'. Tangibility is just applied to God (this force that is unknown) in order to make it more accessible for individuals, and easier for them to understand on a more personal level.

So, admittedly, you are right for some people who do sheerly believe in some Santa Claus figure in the sky, but what you say is not a general indictment of faith itself, so much as those individuals and their individual faith.

Aha, we can understand each other very well. For you see, I have no problem with a nondescript/non-specific God. To suppose that there is a force behind the universe and to label it God is simply a matter of definition.

The problem lies in specific Gods.

"God is this goat."
"God is this being that did these things and then came to Earth."
"God affects the Earth by speaking through these prophets."

For these Gods, basically you have to get the idea from somewhere. Whether it be a holy book or some random thought that popped into your head. From where you get your idea is a non-divine source that you have no proof of being correct. You then assume it on faith to be true, and thus have your God.

For example, a Christian who bases his beliefs around the Bible, he doesn't really have faith in God. He has faith in the fact that the Bible is true and that it is divine, without having proof of this. The rest then follows from that assumption/leap of faith.

I guess this is why I'll never be religious, because the only thing I'm willing to put my faith in is God.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And how should one know if it is really this way?

You don't, that is why it is called faith. The question you raise is about knowledge and what are the acceptable sources of knowledge. If i say that the only true source of knowledge is the bible, then that will direct my life down a certain path. If i say science is the only path to truth, then i will journey a different way. Other choices will take you other places. As we answer fundamental questions, we direct our lives down particular paths. it takes the unexpected to set things ajar and introduce change. For early Christians it was Jesus and his teachings that pushed their lives into a new direction. In the 19th C Charles Darwin made god fearing men rethink how they saw the world and their place in it. Your answers to the basic questions about knowledge and the roles of reason and experience will shape your whole outlook on life. If we answer those questions differently, we will have a hard time agreeing on the more mundane questions.

 

[Atlas14]

"Faith is not wanting to know what is true."

 

[Birdjaguar]

You've missed the point. That's why I didn't only say "Bible", I also said "religious experiences". The point is that you're putting your faith in something that you do not initially know is divine or have any proof that it is divine, that it is divine and from there your religion follows. Whether that's a book, an experience, or a goat, it doesn't matter.

No you miss the point. Regardless of what one says they believe, faith is rooted an experience that you assign to something you do not fully grasp. The affiliation with books or words or goats comes after the faith is established.

BTW, since you are a person without faith, how would you come to the conclusion that you know anything at all about it? It seems logical to me that your lack of it makes you among the least qualified to talk about it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Faith is not wanting to know what is true."

"Relying on science is the easiest way to avoid looking for Truth."

I also put mine in quotes so it would appear that I was quoting some famously intelligent person.

 

[ParkCungHee]

"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." -- G.K. Chesterton

I actually quoted somebody.

 

[Atlas14]

"Relying on science is the easiest way to avoid looking for Truth."

I also put mine in quotes so it would appear that I was quoting some famously intelligent person.

True, true. Oh and my quote was from Nietzsche, one of my favorites of his.

I personally have trouble placing faith in something/someone that I do not understand and cannot be tested using the scientific method. I just think there are other explanations available for phenomena that have more potential to be described as "truthful" than placing faith in something like a god, a catchall idea.

 

[Birdjaguar]

True, true. Oh and my quote was from Nietzsche, one of my favorites of his.

I personally have trouble placing faith in something/someone that I do not understand and cannot be tested using the scientific method. I just think there are other explanations available for phenomena that have more potential to be described as "truthful" than placing faith in something like a god, a catchall idea.

You have just answered the "What is the source of knowledge" question differently than some others do. The more narrowly you answer that question, the more limited your choices in answering other questions.