A CALL TO THE RELIGIOUS

[Walter]

please explain why FAITH provides a pathway to truth and is it reliable?

[Bubbles]

Depends on what you have faith in Walter

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Also depends on what you mean by truth. We all live our lives based on certain moral assumptions and beliefs about what we consider good or beneficial to us based on our subjective experiences within communities and cultures.

Once you get to the realms of religion - it is impossible to objectively verify anything about the supernatural - a lot of religious language and doctrine uses metaphors and analogy to describe or develop beliefs precisely because it is impossible to objectively define the supernatural. I think it is useful to keep thinking about your faith and your moral beliefs and your world-view and developing more understanding of the complexities involved.

[Stranger]

...it is impossible to objectively verify anything about the supernatural...

So how do you know that there is such a thing?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you mean "know" as in something I can objectively prove - I don't know.

I use religion in the same way that I use culture and morals - I have a combined emotional and intellectual reaction to adopting certain views - and I go with what gives me the most satisfaction and happiness and that doesn't break the law. Obviously all cultural, moral or religious views may sometimes impact negatively on others, where they disagree with your views, but that is part of the challenges of living in a society - to try and accommodate that difference in a way that benefits society. Of course then you have the problem that there is no objective view of what benefits society.

[Stranger]

If you mean "know" as in something I can objectively prove - I don't know.

I use religion in the same way that I use culture and morals - I have a combined emotional and intellectual reaction to adopting certain views - and I go with what gives me the most satisfaction and happiness and that doesn't break the law.

I don't understand how anyone can approach a belief that a god (or the 'supernatural in general) literally and objectively exists, in the same way as as they do with cultural and moral questions. It seems to me like using the wrong tools for the job - like trying test a scientific theory using poetry.

Perhaps that is not the nature of your faith?

Either the 'supernatural' or gods exist only in people's minds or we need to approach the question of their existence in the same way as we do other matters of objective fact: with objective evidence and/or logical arguments.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We seem to be using the same arguments but are at opposite ends of the argument. I would argue what is the point of approaching the existence of the supernatural or gods using the tools we use to prove objective facts in the natural world. The supernatural is not a scientific theory. My understanding of the concept is that the rules of science don't apply. I don't see how you can use the rules of science to prove the existence of something science isn't supposed to apply to.

What's wrong with not knowing - as in being able to objectively prove - one way or the other?

[Stranger]

We seem to be using the same arguments but are at opposite ends of the argument. I would argue what is the point of approaching the existence of the supernatural or gods using the tools we use to prove objective facts in the natural world. The supernatural is not a scientific theory. My understanding of the concept is that the rules of science don't apply. I don't see how you can use the rules of science to prove the existence of something science isn't supposed to apply to.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting science as a test - just that if you are making an objective claim (god/'the supernatural' exists in some objective, 'true for everyone' sense), then you need an objective means of testing that claim.

What's wrong with not knowing - as in being able to objectively prove - one way or the other?

There isn't anything wrong with not knowing something. However, if you don't know if god or 'the supernatural' exists, then what is the point of having faith that they do?

In fact, if there isn't any hint of any objective evidence for these things, then it seems to me to be irrational to believe that they are objective realities.

Humans have believed in a vast number of gods, not to mention many other 'magical' or 'supernatural' beings and practices - all of which have exactly the same amount of objective evidence to support them (none), so why would anyone have 'faith' in one out of them all?

[Nearly Sane]

I wasn't necessarily suggesting science as a test - just that if you are making an objective claim (god/'the supernatural' exists in some objective, 'true for everyone' sense), then you need an objective means of testing that claim.

There isn't anything wrong with not knowing something. However, if you don't know if god or 'the supernatural' exists, then what is the point of having faith that they do?

In fact, if there isn't any hint of any objective evidence for these things, then it seems to me to be irrational to believe that they are objective realities.

Humans have believed in a vast number of gods, not to mention many other 'magical' or 'supernatural' beings and practices - all of which have exactly the same amount of objective evidence to support them (none), so why would anyone have 'faith' in one out of them all?

What 'objective' measures do you have for anything?

[Stranger]

What 'objective' measures do you have for anything?

In the sense of inter-subjectively verifiable.

[Nearly Sane]

In the sense of inter-subjectively verifiable.

so not objective

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I wasn't necessarily suggesting science as a test - just that if you are making an objective claim (god/'the supernatural' exists in some objective, 'true for everyone' sense), then you need an objective means of testing that claim.

Either the supernatural (i.e other than natural) exists or it doesn't. But within the constraints of language and any other tools currently available to me I have no way of proving it exists or falsifying it in the way you mean.

I think that is the point - since it is called "faith". Faith - a subjective term - is different from knowing in the objective sense. When people no longer have any use for "faith", presumably the word will become archaic, obsolete and people will want to only operate on the basis of what they can objectively show.

We don't "know" if faith becoming obsolete will happen at some point in the future - you can hold the opinion it is likely, you can believe that this will happen, you can even have faith in it happening if you want and operate your life on the basis that it will happen. Maybe because you detect certain patterns of behaviour or vibes from people you talk to that this is what will happen eventually. But if you are asked right now whether you know this will happen - you don't know and there is no way of currently testing for it to objectively prove that this is where humans are heading.

There isn't anything wrong with not knowing something. However, if you don't know if god or 'the supernatural' exists, then what is the point of having faith that they do?

In fact, if there isn't any hint of any objective evidence for these things, then it seems to me to be irrational to believe that they are objective realities.

Humans have believed in a vast number of gods, not to mention many other 'magical' or 'supernatural' beings and practices - all of which have exactly the same amount of objective evidence to support them (none), so why would anyone have 'faith' in one out of them all?

I think having faith in something is usually a work in progress, an on-going process of questioning, thinking, developing different perspectives, it gets you thinking, wondering.

I could just have long, philosophical, emotionally satisfying discussions without introducing the supernatural into it, but I did that when I was an atheist, and then I got interested in having long, philosophical, emotionally satisfying discussions with a supernatural element to it. But if you ask theists there will probably be lots of different reasons for their faith. I just highlighted one reason off the top of my head. I am sure if I think about it I will have others - but this isn't really the place to get too personal. People aren't interested in the why, it's more a place to try and win an argument.   

[Stranger]

so not objective

The usage is from Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery so has, to my mind, a reasonable pedigree. I find the philosophical hair-splitting of insisting that nothing is objective to be tedious in the extreme. If we don't inhabit an objective, external world, we might as well because it is just as inescapable.

Nevertheless, if you want to mentally substitute "objective" with "inter-subjectively verifiable" in my posts, be my guest but I can't be arsed to type it.

[Nearly Sane]

The usage is from Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery so has, to my mind, a reasonable pedigree. I find the philosophical hair-splitting of insisting that nothing is objective to be tedious in the extreme. If we don't inhabit an objective, external world, we might as well because it is just as inescapable.

Nevertheless, if you want to mentally substitute "objective" with "inter-subjectively verifiable" in my posts, be my guest but I can't be arsed to type it.

So argument by authority, and a new one, argument by tediousness. If you don't want to use terms accurately then don't pretend you are using them accurately.

[Stranger]

Either the supernatural (i.e other than natural) exists or it doesn't. But within the constraints of language and any other tools currently available to me I have no way of proving it exists or falsifying it in the way you mean.

I think that is the point - since it is called "faith". Faith - a subjective term - is different from knowing in the objective sense. When people no longer have any use for "faith", presumably the word will become archaic, obsolete and people will want to only operate on the basis of what they can objectively show.

The word faith has many meanings - faith in the sense of confidence in something due to previous experience or putting faith in somebody or something despite them or it being untested (but knowing the risk), I can understand. What I don't understand is why anybody would believe in something being objectively real without any objective indication that it is, or even might be.

I could just have long, philosophical, emotionally satisfying discussions without introducing the supernatural into it, but I did that when I was an atheist, and then I got interested in having long, philosophical, emotionally satisfying discussions with a supernatural element to it. But if you ask theists there will probably be lots of different reasons for their faith. I just highlighted one reason off the top of my head. I am sure if I think about it I will have others - but this isn't really the place to get too personal. People aren't interested in the why, it's more a place to try and win an argument.

Having philosophical discussions about things that are pure speculation - without evidence - is one thing but I still don't get why anyone would choose to believe them by faith...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I assume it must be the way my brain is responding to certain stimuli and there must be a beneficial effect to me otherwise I wouldn't continue to do it.

[Stranger]

So argument by authority, and a new one, argument by tediousness. If you don't want to use terms accurately then don't pretend you are using them accurately.

Neither where arguments - I wasn't trying to persuade you, or anybody else, of anything.

I was pointing out that I am using terminology in a sense that has been used previously in relevant literature. You questioned it (which was perfectly reasonable) and I defined what I meant. If you don't like it, then you don't - but it is now clear to anybody who cares, so don't like it as much as you like. 

I was also expressing an opinion as to the uselessness of making the distinction on the basis that the 'objective, external world' might not be objective or external. Yes - I know - but it doesn't get us anywhere, it's a dead end that we can learn nothing from.

[Nearly Sane]

Neither where arguments - I wasn't trying to persuade you, or anybody else, of anything.

I was pointing out that I am using terminology in a sense that has been used previously in relevant literature. You questioned it (which was perfectly reasonable) and I defined what I meant. If you don't like it, then you don't - but it is now clear to anybody who cares, so don't like it as much as you like. 

I was also expressing an opinion as to the uselessness of making the distinction on the basis that the 'objective, external world' might not be objective or external. Yes - I know - but it doesn't get us anywhere, it's a dead end that we can learn nothing from.

You weren't using a name as an argument to 'persuade' anyone? Were you just randomly writing anything then?

You then repeat your argument about it and say it is in the 'relevant literature' back to the argument by authority tied up with an assertion.


So given you aren't trying to persuade anyone with arguments, we can just ignore your post as given it is based on fallacies and you think it is irrelevant, why bother?

[Stranger]

You weren't using a name as an argument to 'persuade' anyone? Were you just randomly writing anything then?

You then repeat your argument about it and say it is in the 'relevant literature' back to the argument by authority tied up with an assertion.


So given you aren't trying to persuade anyone with arguments, we can just ignore your post as given it is based on fallacies and you think it is irrelevant, why bother?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

1/ I'm using the word 'objective' in a sense that has a history in relevant literature.

2/ I'm not try to persuade you (or anybody else) to like the usage.

3/ Since I've now defined it, what the hell does it matter if I call it 'objective', 'inter-subjectively verifiable', 'ISV' or 'aardvark stew'...?

4/ The discussion I was having is (with Gabriella) stands with the definition I have provided.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

1/ I'm using the word 'objective' in a sense that has a history in relevant literature.

2/ I'm not try to persuade you (or anybody else) to like the usage.

3/ Since I've now defined it, what the hell does it matter if I call it 'objective', 'inter-subjectively verifiable', 'ISV' or 'aardvark stew'...?

4/ The discussion I was having is (with Gabriella) stands with the definition I have provided.

You are using it in a sense that imports values that makes ypour discussion and use of it with Gabriella nonsensical. It's not whether I or the Grand Poo Bah of Pinsonby like it but whether it has any useful value

[Stranger]

You are using it in a sense that imports values that makes ypour discussion and use of it with Gabriella nonsensical.

Because...?

[Nearly Sane]

Because...?

because you are asking the difference between non objective values, and objective ones as if the process in what objective, either is what it imports, or in what you want to use it in, while begging the question about whether that has any relevance to a being more correct in the wider discussion. It's a bait and switch, though it seems at least unintentional for your part

[Stranger]

because you are asking the difference between non objective values, and objective ones...

How can a value be objective (inter-subjectively verifiable)?

I was asking why someone would choose to believe (by faith) in an objective (inter-subjectively verifiable - I actually used the term "true for everyone" in #7) god (or 'the supernatural' in general) without objective (inter-subjectively verifiable) evidence and/or logical arguments to support it.

It works just as well with either phrase.

...as if the process in what objective, either is what it imports, or in what you want to use it in, while begging the question about whether that has any relevance to a being more correct in the wider discussion.

Where did this "more correct" come from? I was talking about appropriateness: how can it be appropriate to use the same approach to arrive at a belief in an inter-subjectively verifiable god as you would use for moral and cultural questions, which do not have inter-subjectively verifiable answers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand how anyone can approach a belief that a god (or the 'supernatural in general) literally and objectively exists.

Actual rather than contingent or derived ability.

[Stranger]

Actual rather than contingent or derived ability.

You blatantly misquote me and then post gibberish. What are you expecting....?