What's your religion?

[Heiwatsuki]

No, no, no. That was to show you what faith is in terms of a religion (in this case, Christianity).

You kept saying how religion cannot be considered true because it is based on faith. And all I was trying to show by that verse is that people can consider religion to be true precisely because of faith.

omg you should have stated that sooner lol, i thought you were just plain thinking something was true based only on faith. but yeah, to a believer, a religion would be considered real or true. i was trying to say a religion couldnt technacaly be real in terms of this worlds definition of real(after all, im a realist). as in when something cannot be proved, it cannot be true unless it is proved. but in a religous persons view their belief is true to them. i misunderstood and thought you were saying that in terms of the general definition of true or real(meaning all beliefs) and I typed up your view for nothing since you already knew.. but yeah, to religious people its true... since you already knew that and it was just my misunderstanding... sorry. and i guess our argument is over lol. nice arguing with you

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by monstert

For all practical purposes, the end result is the same.

Admittedly it is anecdotal, but in my experience with Catholic religious figures (brothers, nuns, priests since I went to a Catholic High School) many of the strongest believers seemed to actively question their faith and encouraged others to do so as well. If something is merely 'true to a person,' I don't think it is faith anymore. That's simply refusing to admit other possibilities. By my definition (and the one I was taught in said school), faith involves some kind of analysis, and the 'calculated risk' of throwing in with your religion of choice; believing it to be true, but accepting it might not be (and challenging your reasoning to enrich or even change your beliefs as new information arises).

[monster]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Admittedly it is anecdotal, but in my experience with Catholic religious figures (brothers, nuns, priests since I went to a Catholic High School) many of the strongest believers seemed to actively question their faith and encouraged others to do so as well. If something is merely 'true to a person,' I don't think it is faith anymore. That's simply refusing to admit other possibilities. By my definition (and the one I was taught in said school), faith involves some kind of analysis, and the 'calculated risk' of throwing in with your religion of choice; believing it to be true, but accepting it might not be (and challenging your reasoning to enrich or even change your beliefs as new information arises).

Let's just get one thing straight: I was never talking about how one goes about dealing with faith.

I'm saying that, no matter how faith is gained, whether through some analysis or not, if a person has decided to have faith in something, then that means (s)he is certain of the truth and reality of that something. Because that is simply what faith is.

Now there might be something else that comes along to challenge a person's faith. But how one deals with that challenge is an entirely different matter to what I've been talking about.

And like I said to xKou, it is normal for a believer to consider his/her religion to be true because of faith.

Simply put, if one does believe in a religion, then the logical conclusion is that one is certain of the truth of that religion. Whether one should question one's faith is tangential to this point.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by monstert

Let's just get one thing straight: I was never talking about how one goes about dealing with faith.

I'm saying that, no matter how faith is gained, whether through some analysis or not, if a person has decided to have faith in something, then that means (s)he will be certain of the truth and reality of that something. Because that is simply what faith is.

Now there might be something else that comes along to challenge a person's faith. But how one deals with that challenge is an entirely different matter to what I've been talking about.

And like I said to xKou, it is normal for a believer to consider his/her religion to be true because of faith.

Simply put, if one does believe in a religion, then the logical conclusion is that one is certain of the truth of that religion. Whether one should question one's faith is tangential to this point.

Well whichever religion a person follows, there is only one truth that person will follow, and it will be based on that religion. As you said, there is always challenges that pits the person's faith in that specific truth. It just depends on how the person will deal with that certain situation.

Is that right monstert?

[monster]

Originally Posted by Hooves

Well whichever religion a person follows, there is only one truth that person will follow, and it will be based on that religion. As you said, there is always challenges that pits the person's faith in that specific truth. It just depends on how the person will deal with that certain situation.

Is that right monstert?

I suppose, to be more accurate, it will be based on your faith (or lack of it).

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by monstert

Let's just get one thing straight: I was never talking about how one goes about dealing with faith.

I'm saying that, no matter how faith is gained, whether through some analysis or not, if a person has decided to have faith in something, then that means (s)he is certain of the truth and reality of that something. Because that is simply what faith is.

Now there might be something else that comes along to challenge a person's faith. But how one deals with that challenge is an entirely different matter to what I've been talking about.

And like I said to xKou, it is normal for a believer to consider his/her religion to be true because of faith.

Simply put, if one does believe in a religion, then the logical conclusion is that one is certain of the truth of that religion. Whether one should question one's faith is tangential to this point.

I completely disagree. Being certain of something and having faith in it are completely different things, and is in opposition to what my experience with people of faith has shown me. I already explained my reasoning in the above post. Are you a fundamentalist Christian? Because that would make more sense in context of what you are saying.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by monstert

Let's just get one thing straight: I was never talking about how one goes about dealing with faith.

I'm saying that, no matter how faith is gained, whether through some analysis or not, if a person has decided to have faith in something, then that means (s)he is certain of the truth and reality of that something. Because that is simply what faith is.

Now there might be something else that comes along to challenge a person's faith. But how one deals with that challenge is an entirely different matter to what I've been talking about.

And like I said to xKou, it is normal for a believer to consider his/her religion to be true because of faith.

Simply put, if one does believe in a religion, then the logical conclusion is that one is certain of the truth of that religion. Whether one should question one's faith is tangential to this point.

Doesn't matter. Certain kinds of faith will always hold precedence over others.

There is the faith in something that is based on no reasoning other than perhaps hope, delusion, fantasy, and "personal revelations."

Then there is the faith that is based on reason and collective agreement, ala scientific method. Because I drop this apple and it hits the ground, I can have "faith" in Newton's law of gravity and accept it as a truth. Anyone, and absolutely everybody can test out Newton's laws and find some sort of truth in them. If someone drops an apple and it doesn't move for no apparent human reasoning, then we can express doubt in this faith .

However, I can also have faith that the end of the world will occur at the moment I submit this forum post because I had a "personal revelation" in a dream of mine last night where all the prophets came to spoke to me.

The difference here is that I cannot convince anyone of the second faith who is using human logic. These people have not and never will see my supposed vision, nor do I have any evidence or knowledge of how the world might come to an end at this point and time. Obviously I will be proven wrong.

But according to you, the faith is on the same level right?

[monster]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

But according to you, the faith is on the same level right?

No, because the moment you realized the world didn't end at the moment you submit your post, your faith is shattered. Although if you continue to believe in it, then more power to you.

But that's obviously different than religious faith. And many people do believe in a religion.

On second thought, I must stress that I wasn't talking about trying to convince other people to follow a particular faith. So whether or not your faith is convincing to other people is irrelevant.

[Cipher]

I did not read the preceding arguments/posts, but I'll just try and jump in.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Doesn't matter. Certain kinds of faith will always hold precedence over others.

There is the faith in something that is based on no reasoning other than perhaps hope, delusion, fantasy, and "personal revelations."

Then there is the faith that is based on reason and collective agreement, ala scientific method. Because I drop this apple and it hits the ground, I can have "faith" in Newton's law of gravity and accept it as a truth. Anyone, and absolutely everybody can test out Newton's laws and find some sort of truth in them. If someone drops an apple and it doesn't move for no apparent human reasoning, then we can express doubt in this faith .

However, I can also have faith that the end of the world will occur at the moment I submit this forum post because I had a "personal revelation" in a dream of mine last night where all the prophets came to spoke to me.

The difference here is that I cannot convince anyone of the second faith who is using human logic. These people have not and never will see my supposed vision, nor do I have any evidence or knowledge of how the world might come to an end at this point and time. Obviously I will be proven wrong.

How will you be proven wrong?

-----

Let us seek for the definition of faith. First, where does it originate from? Is it historical consistency(experience)? Is it like when the apple keeps falling, you become 'faithful' that it will fall the next time? Is it that trust between partners(which basically falls in line with experience)? If this is the definition, then isn't this the same faith of "that revelation in the dream last night"? Perhaps the question is, which "faith" is "stronger"? Faith on the "apple scenario" or on the "dream scenario"? I guess this is what you mean by "human logic"?

If the definition of faith is oriented around experience, then I think we can conclude that the important difference between the "apple scenario" and the "dream scenario" is that one is backed by *more* experience, essentially, empiricism.The apple scenario is more conditioned to the mind as oppose to the dream scenario. If every "revelations" you had in your dream became as consistently true as the apple falling, then you will have the two versions of "faith" in "equal experiential validity". And perhaps the "evidence" you would show for "The law of dream revelation" is simply prediction and consistency---similar to the "law of gravity".

Is empiricism really a subset of faith?


----

I don't really understand how one can persuade others by simply asserting that e hirself has faith. But this stuff really makes me think about the "form of the good"...seeking objective knowledge via personal discovery or something.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by monstert

No, because the moment you realized the world didn't end at the moment you submit your post, your faith is shattered. Although if you continue to believe in it, then more power to you.

But that's obviously different than religious faith. And many people do believe in a religion.

On second thought, I must stress that I wasn't talking about trying to convince other people to follow a particular faith. So whether or not your faith is convincing to other people is irrelevant.

Whatever, then make it that I faith the world will end in 2015. My point still stands. The different types of "faith" for lack of a better word are not equal and never will be.

Originally Posted by Cipher

I did not read the preceding arguments/posts, but I'll just try and jump in.


How will you be proven wrong?

-----

Let us seek for the definition of faith. First, where does it originate from? Is it historical consistency(experience)? Is it like when the apple keeps falling, you become 'faithful' that it will fall the next time? Is it that trust between partners(which basically falls in line with experience)? If this is the definition, then isn't this the same faith of "that revelation in the dream last night"? Perhaps the question is, which "faith" is "stronger"? Faith on the "apple scenario" or on the "dream scenario"? I guess this is what you mean by "human logic"?

What? The scientific method allows anyone with the means to perform the same experiment with the same variables and get the same result. When does the dream allow anyone to do the same? Don't equate the two.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Whatever, then make it that I faith the world will end in 2015. My point still stands. The different types of "faith" for lack of a better word are not equal and never will be.

And what does that have to do with what I said?

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by monstert

And what does that have to do with what I said?

You were saying "no" because the faith was shattered, so I gave you a faith that hasn't been shattered yet. I'm equating such a thought to religion.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

You were saying "no" because the faith was shattered, so I gave you a faith that hasn't been shattered yet. I'm equating such a thought to religion.

Hahaha.....well man, it's a good try. But you know, if you really want to use an analogy to get your meaning across, it's usually a good idea to resort to established ones first, rather than making one up on the spot which might be vulnerable to poor wording and thus strawmanning.

To begin with, try teapots in space or pasta dieties.

[Urzu 7]

I've seen and directly experienced evidence of metaphysics before. I wish more people had such good fortune. Very broadly put; metaphysics is a real part of reality (at least, I am convinced it is so, to speak fairly of the matter). I'm sharing the following because I think some might find it 'a positive read'.

(I will replace my grandmothers name with a fake name, "Sue Brown".)

I have a grandmother that passed away last decade and she has reached out to the family with the sole purpose to let us know she lives on. A picture was taken at her grave site on Christmas Day some years ago. Three pictures taken. On the third picture, my aunt said "Please Sue, give us a sign". The picture was uploaded to the PC. Two came out normal. One seemed glitched. But analysis of the picture showed something in it. It was a hazy mess of colors, but if you look closer, you actually see religious imagery. Trust me, I'm not talking about kind of sort of seeing these things, or something psychosematic. I've seen the picture before, there is definitely religious imagery in it (Jesus on the cross, Mary holding baby Jesus).

On top of this, another family was visiting the grave site of a loved one on Christmas day. They approached my relatives and asked "Are you the relatives of Sue Brown?". They said yes. Turns out, this young woman had a sister of hers that died recently, and to make matters worse, she suffered all her life from a health condition. Her family and her were really upset and sad about the loss. This young woman had a dream one night where what is believed to be an angel told her "Don't worry, Sue Brown is taking care of your sister now". She'd ask "Who is this person?" and she would get the response "You'll find out soon". She had this similar dream 3 or 4 times. Turns out her sister's grave is right next to my grandmothers. On that Christmas day, it was revealed to two families that their loved ones live on in two unique ways (the digital picture and piecing together the dreams that were no ordinary dreams).

There have been other ways in which my grandmother reached out to the family. A few years ago my aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer. No one outside of her immediate family knew about this, yet my uncle had a dream where this same grandmother came to him and said "Don't worry, your sister is going to be alright, she will have good doctors". My uncle thought this dream was a message, and he was right. He called my aunt and found out she just got diagnosed with breast cancer a couple of days earlier. My aunt is now doing great and over came the cancer pretty well. There has also been times when two of my aunts heard my grandmother's voice (when of course, she had passed away). They heard her voice as clear as if she was physically there. There have been other ways she reached out to the family, too.

I shared these accounts with a co-worker before, and she told me similar accounts. She had a father who was deeply religious, and she told me that he reached out to the family of hers with, in part, but not exclusive to, the same goal: to let the family know he lives on. The most phenomanal account was this: my co-worker has a daughter in her 20s. Her and her husband had their first child, and he/she (the baby) had a health complication. The baby needed surgery on the brain. Not once, buy nine times. The doctors told them that for each single surgery, the child had a %75-%80 chance of dying, and there were high chances of brain damage if they were to not die. The doctors were very pessimistic, but said they'd try their best. They didn't know how many times the child would need surgery. Again, nine times the baby needed surgery. The parents were distraught. There was much praying. Their prayers were heard. Every night before the day of one of these surgeries, my coworkers father came to the father of the child in a dream and gave the same message: "Do not worry, God will protect your child from harm". Every night before the surgery the father had this in his dreams. The child had nine surgeries and lived through each one, never became injured or brain damaged, and the surgeries corrected the problems for the child.

I have more accounts I could share, but my post is getting long, so I'll stop here. I just want to assure people that metaphysics are real, and there is an afterlife, and you can see loved ones who passed away; you can see them again. I know a lot of people are disenchanted with the bad apples of religion, but don't let the fools have some of you thinking and feeling that anything and everything about religion and spirituality is just some farce or nonsense.

I'm a very spiritual person, and these accounts and other accounts have served to confirm some things for me. I know that other posters have different convictions and I respect that; maybe at the least they will find these accounts intriguing, and for some posters here, maybe these accounts will be uplifting to them.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

You were saying "no" because the faith was shattered, so I gave you a faith that hasn't been shattered yet. I'm equating such a thought to religion.

Yes, I know what you're trying to do. But what I meant was what does your point, that there are different and unequal types of faith, has to do with what I was talking about with ChainLegacy?

I mean, so what if you can't convince others that the world will end in 2015 or whenever your "personal revelation" tells you? Does that change the fact that you believe in that dream? (Assuming, of course, that you do.) Even if the world doesn't end in the year 2015, and you stop believing anymore, well I guess that would be the end of your faith in that dream. It doesn't change the period in between where you did believe that the world will end in 2015.

Anyway, speaking of ChainLegacy, I just realized I missed one of his/her post. So here's my late reply:

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I completely disagree. Being certain of something and having faith in it are completely different things, and is in opposition to what my experience with people of faith has shown me. I already explained my reasoning in the above post.

I glanced at several online search resuls, and the term "confident belief" appears several times when describing faith. And the only other thing I can show you is what the Bible says about faith in Hebrews 11:1. And that verse contains the words "sure" and "certain," at least in the NIV translation.

So I don't know what else to tell you. If one is not certain about their religion, why would they bother following it?

Are you a fundamentalist Christian? Because that would make more sense in context of what you are saying.

To be honest, I don't know.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by monstert

Yes, I know what you're trying to do. But what I meant was what does your point, that there are different and unequal types of faith, has to do with what I was talking about with ChainLegacy?

I mean, so what if you can't convince others that the world will end in 2015 or whenever your "personal revelation" tells you? Does that change the fact that you believe in that dream? (Assuming, of course, that you do.) Even if the world doesn't end in the year 2015, and you stop believing anymore, well I guess that would be the end of your faith in that dream. It doesn't change the period in between where you did believe that the world will end in 2015.

Anyway, speaking of ChainLegacy, I just realized I missed one of his/her post. So here's my late reply: I glanced at several online search resuls, and the term "confident belief" appears several times when describing faith. And the only other thing I can show you is what the Bible says about faith in Hebrews 11:1. And that verse contains the words "sure" and "certain," at least in the NIV translation.

So I don't know what else to tell you. If one is not certain about their religion, why would they bother following it? To be honest, I don't know.

I'm going to quote you here...

I'm saying that, no matter how faith is gained, whether through some analysis or not, if a person has decided to have faith in something, then that means (s)he is certain of the truth and reality of that something. Because that is simply what faith is.

Perhaps I went a bit off topic with what you said here, and I think I tried to interpret your posts through ChainLegacy's and got a warped impression of what you were trying to say.

I was merely pointing out that many such "faiths," though true to the person at the time, are easily shattered through being purely logical/rational. That's why even if such truths exist in each and every person, I ask "so what?"

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Hahaha.....well man, it's a good try. But you know, if you really want to use an analogy to get your meaning across, it's usually a good idea to resort to established ones first, rather than making one up on the spot which might be vulnerable to poor wording and thus strawmanning.

To begin with, try teapots in space or pasta dieties.

Duly noted.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

That's why even if such truths exist in each and every person, I ask "so what?"

Well, in this context, I was originally replying to xKou who said that religious people should not say their religion is real simply because it's based on faith.

So my point is that if they have faith in their religion, then of course they would say it's real.

Now to tie in with your point, the fact that faith can be shattered is irrelevant. If they no longer believe, then they would no longer say it's real.

[Haak]

People have different views on faith. On one side you have Fideism and on another you have Reformed Epistemology which is based on Foundationalism. Fideism supports the view that faith is entirely independant on faith whilst others may argue that faith has to be based on reason. Reformed Epistemologists argue that Faith can be one of the axioms of a belief system that supports other beliefs.

I think the coherentism alternative is that maybe instead of faith being based on any specific reasoning, it is merely coherent with other beliefs.

Here's a diagram to illustrate:

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

What? The scientific method allows anyone with the means to perform the same experiment with the same variables and get the same result. When does the dream allow anyone to do the same? Don't equate the two.

Clarification: I wasn't trying to equate the two but emphasize a possible "denominator" of the two.

If it is a valid similarity, then it is an interesting thought. (at least, in my opinion)

Experience is observation. A revelation is from observation. The law of gravity is from observation. Obviously, there is a significant separation.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Clarification: I wasn't trying to equate the two but emphasize a possible "denominator" of the two.

If it is a valid similarity, then it is an interesting thought. (at least, in my opinion)

Experience is observation. A revelation is from observation. The law of gravity is from observation. Obviously, there is a significant separation.

I'd prefer if you'd stop making meaningless statements. If you have something to say, say it concisely. I have no use for your obscurantist talk.