Faith vs blind faith

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think anybody is asking anybody else to trust in God on the strength of their own faith Hillside. That is a distortion of evangelical Christianity.

That’s exactly what Christians do when they assert their god to be my god too because that’s their “faith”.

In other words....it's down to you and God at the end of the day.

Massive overreach there. We’re trying to establish why your “personal trust” in the veracity of a belief you have would suggest to anyone else that there even is a god in the first place. That is, that your "faith" isn't blind.

If there is no argument for that though then just say so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

Wot's wrong with blind faith, then?

Nothing, provided those who have it don't overreach into insisting that it's something else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's a slogan which as yet has not been justified.
If I haven't asked for it before can I ask you now to justify that assertion. If you are able to produce half of what Hillside manages i'm sure that would go some way.

Of course it's justified - the moment in fact someone says, "actually I have no method to distinguish my faith from blind faith" as you just implied, albeit unwittingly.

[Gordon]

No my position is that there are no knock down arguments on either side, science has nothing to say in support or against atheism or agnosticism, and you guys, when it comes down to it are just absence of physical evidence is evidence of absence.

Why are you talking about atheism and agnosticism (leaving aside your caricature of them) when the thread, and and my post, was about religious faith?

Now can you or can you not justify your assertion that faith is unjustified belief?

I already did: no relevant method to investigate the supernatural and the dependence on fallacies by those seeking to justify their faith: hence their failure leads me to conclude their faith-based beliefs are unjustified. Pay attention!

I think the trouble is that you don't want to put up anything that constitutes any justification for your beliefs about faith for fear of the Emmental nature of them.

I just have: I've no fear of cheese by the way.

I recall here one or two who a few years ago cheerfully and unashamedly announcing loud and proud their physicalism and naturalism but nobody is keen to now because they were treated to some refutations...................

Do you: that's nice. One does wonder though if it isn't more the case that you're declaring victory for your army of straw men that nobody actually engaged with (in view of their strawness).

Does that explain your reluctance to make justification?

Already done that - so all you need to now to counter me is produce the method noted above whilst avoiding any fallacies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course it's justified - the moment in fact someone says, "actually I have no method to distinguish my faith from blind faith" as you just implied, albeit unwittingly.

Now you know as a good little physicalist you don't mean that.
With advances in neurology and brain scans we will be able to tell the difference.
Even in the realm of the abstract my definition discriminates the two. Are you having trouble with definitions
If Scientism is a scoundrel's pursuit what is ''scientism packed away when it doesn't fit your argument''?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No my position is that there are no knock down arguments on either side, science has nothing to say in support or against atheism or agnosticism, and you guys, when it comes down to it are just absence of physical evidence is evidence of absence.

That’s a non sequitur. There can be “knock down arguments” without invoking something science makes no claims to in any case. The knock down arguments are in fact the codified logic that some who would argue for “God” attempt but get wrong. That there may be other arguments for gods that no-one has thought of yet and that would be cogent is unknowable.

Now can you or can you not justify your assertion that faith is unjustified belief?

Already done. It’s unjustified when it’s, well, it's un-justified. That is, when those who assert "God" offer no justification for the claim that withstands scrutiny.

I think the trouble is that you don't want to put up anything that constitutes any justification for your beliefs about faith for fear of the Emmental nature of them.

Wrong again – see above.

I recall here one or two who a few years ago cheerfully and unashamedly announcing loud and proud their physicalism and naturalism but nobody is keen to now because they were treated to some refutations...................

Does that explain your reluctance to make justification?

Presumably you’re thinking here of metaphysical naturalism – something I’ve never seen anyone propound, and that fails in any case because its conclusion isn’t certainty apt. That you’ve used it relentlessly for straw man purposes doesn’t change that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Now you know as a good little physicalist you don't mean that.
With advances in neurology and brain scans we will be able to tell the difference.
Even in the realm of the abstract my definition discriminates the two. Are you having trouble with definitions

You think there will be instruments that can tell the difference between faith and blind faith?

Seriously?

How so?

If Scientism is a scoundrel's pursuit what is ''scientism packed away when it doesn't fit your argument''?

Scientism is just putting undue weight on the methods and tools of science. Provided you’re not sneaking in again your personal re-definition of it, it’s irrelevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s a non sequitur. There can be “knock down arguments” without invoking something science makes no claims to in any case. The knock down arguments are in fact the codified logic that some who would argue for “God” attempt but get wrong. That there may be other arguments for gods that no-one has thought of yet and that would be cogent is unknowable.

Already done. It’s unjustified when it’s, well, it's un-justified. That is, when those who assert "God" offer no justification for the claim that withstands scrutiny.

Wrong again – see above.

Presumably you’re thinking here of metaphysical naturalism – something I’ve never seen anyone propound, and that fails in any case because its conclusion isn’t certainty apt. That you’ve used it relentlessly for straw man purposes doesn’t change that.

You are forgetting the expectation of justification comes from naturalists or naturalistic arguments whatever guff you come out with about metaphysical naturalism (How you can claim you are arguing against metaphysical arguments by not using metaphysical arguments means you are either mistaken or mistaking science for an argument against religion.)

Therefore it is not surprising you don't accept justifications made....even though naturalism cannot be justified by it's own criteria of justification.
And here, on Religionethics this disingenuity is all done with a straight face!!!
And the fact that the intelligent non pisstaking atheist as well as almost everyone else has left means that you are all engaged in some kind of chain of mutual support for the unsupportable.

Can we move on now. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You think there will be instruments that can tell the difference between faith and blind faith?

I think there will be neurological instruments to demonstrate any difference between faith and just guessing, yes. And Goddodging too.

[Maeght]

No disrespect to you or your coment intended Maeght, or to any of the other non-religious/realist, contributers to this thread but, does it really matter whatever the difference is between these two?

ippy

I didn't start the thread and was nust referring to the actual meaning of blind faith. Whether this phrase is correctly used or otherwise on here is a different question and I make no comment ax I don't claim to know what theidts mught think about their understanding.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are forgetting the expectation of justification comes from naturalists or naturalistic arguments whatever guff you come out with about metaphysical naturalism…

And off he goes again. It’s got bugger all to do with any of that. You were merely asked why anyone else should treat someone's personal trust in the truth of a belief he happens to have as any better than a guess. If the answer is, “there is no reason” then just say so and move on.

(How you can claim you are arguing against metaphysical arguments by not using metaphysical arguments means you are either mistaken or mistaking science for an argument against religion.)

It’s simple enough – you cannot eliminate the risk of unknown unknowns. Basic logic.

Therefore it is not surprising you don't accept justifications made....

No, the problem is that there aren’t any justifications made when someone’s "argument" is, “that’s my faith”. That’s all you’re being asked for – something to distinguish your “trust” in a belief in a god from anyone else’s trust in any other belief in anything else.
   

…even though naturalism cannot be justified by it's own criteria of justification.

OFFS! That one’s been smashed out of the park so often it’s not even funny now.

And here, on Religionethics this disingenuity is all done with a straight face!!!

Then stop doing it.

And the fact that the intelligent non pisstaking atheist as well as almost everyone else has left means that you are all engaged in some kind of chain of mutual support for the unsupportable.

Can we move on now.

Yes you can – to try to address the question you were actually asked. If you can’t explain the difference between faith and blind faith though, have the decency to say so and get out of the road.   

I think there will be neurological instruments to demonstrate any difference between faith and just guessing, yes. And Goddodging too.

You’re confused. That someone may well not think they’re guessing but they’re guessing anyway doesn’t seem to me to be something a machine could identify. 

[Shaker]

I think there will be neurological instruments to demonstrate any difference between faith and just guessing, yes. And Goddodging too.

Isn't that what's known as promissory scientism, Vlad? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't that what's known as promissory scientism, Vlad? 

Errrrrr.......a bit.

[Shaker]

Errrrrr.......a bit.

Well that's strange - you're the first to criticise that (or what you perceive to be that) in others.

Deploying it yourself would be the rankest of hypocrisy. It can't be that - I must be wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well that's strange - you're the first to criticise that (or what you perceive to be that) in others.

Deploying it yourself would be the rankest of hypocrisy. It can't be that - I must be wrong.

A brain scanner detects activity in the brain we can assume that the definition will go up and areas of the scan will light up in response to each activity.
Hillside's conception of the brain dictates that each thought is in fact merely the activation of areas of the brain.
Therefore barring some global catastrophy we could tell the difference between having faith and guessing. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the technology is  already available. There is no novel methodology here merely making accurate detection apparatus.
I fail to see therefore that this is promissory science and certainly not in the league of science finding out what happened before the big bang.

[Shaker]

A brain scanner detects activity in the brain we can assume that the definition will go up and areas of the scan will light up in response to each activity.
Hillside's conception of the brain dictates that each thought is in fact merely the activation of areas of the brain.
Therefore barring some global catastrophy we could tell the difference between having faith and guessing.

Not unless the object or content of the belief-or-guess was amenable to empirical investigation and so able to be confirmed as a true belief or disconfirmed as just another ex recto guess.

That's religious beliefs out as there's no methodology for so doing, as I think we've fairly conclusively demonstrated by now.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the technology is  already available. There is no novel methodology here merely making accurate detection apparatus.
I fail to see therefore that this is promissory science

Does the technology exist yet? Fairly sure that if it did we'd know about it, wouldn't we? Therefore promissory scientism, to which you agreed in #37 though clearly you're trying to wriggle out of it now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not unless the object or content of the belief-or-guess was amenable to empirical investigation and so able to be confirmed as a true belief or disconfirmed as just another ex recto guess.

That's religious beliefs out as there's no methodology for so doing, as I think we've fairly conclusively demonstrated by now.Does the technology exist yet? Fairly sure that if it did we'd know about it, wouldn't we? Therefore promissory scientism, to which you agreed in #37 though clearly you're trying to wriggle out of it now.

I think the truth of faith or otherwise isn't particularly relevant to the question "is faith just guessing?"
Presumably when someone is just guessing a particular part of the brain is demonstrably operating.

And the beauty is of course we can test any belief.

[Shaker]

I think the truth of faith or otherwise isn't particularly relevant to the question "is faith just guessing?"

What's your suggested alternative?

Presumably when someone is just guessing a particular part of the brain is demonstrably operating.

And the beauty is of course we can test any belief.

How?

[Sriram]

IMO...Faith is 'blind faith' if it is based on someone else's experience or teaching. Most often religious faith is blind faith. I am not saying  it is wrong but it is not based on ones own experience. Blind faith could be the beginning... which sets the stage and could lead to real faith.

Real faith is based on ones own personal experience.  It is a personal recognition of the hidden forces and patterns that work behind normal mundane existence. 

Real faith is like knowledge except that it is not sensory and therefore does not get processed the same way that other sensory knowledge gets processed. It therefore remains 'faith' even though a person actually experiences and recognizes the patterns and forces that are working behind the scenes and is even able to predict future events to an extent.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/faith/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's your suggested alternative?How?

What's your suggested alternative?How?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Surely my alternative or your insistence on faith being a guess are judged in the light of any brain scans demonstrating an act of guessing or whether other regions are working.
I have heard of research which reveals that at the word "God" religious subjects brains operated in a different way to non religious brains.
In the non religious the visualisation centres became active suggesting the non religious were effectively trying out different versions of the God idea but all visual where as a different part of the brain was operational in religious subjects.

In other words it sounds to me like the atheist response is more like guessing.
In other words any or claims of no position of God are detectable by brain scan.

[Shaker]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

... which was precisely my reaction to your random word generated post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... which was precisely my reaction to your random word generated post.

It was a straight forward proposal that faith would be distinguishable or otherwise from guessing by use of brain scan.

The question of truth would be irrelevant.

[Gordon]

I have heard of research which reveals that at the word "God" religious subjects brains operated in a different way to non religious brains.

Do you have references for this research?

In the non religious the visualisation centres became active suggesting the non religious were effectively trying out different versions of the God idea but all visual where as a different part of the brain was operational in religious subjects.

We need to see the research: sounds fascinating.

In other words it sounds to me like the atheist response is more like guessing.

No doubt: but do the researchers concur with how it sounds to you?

In other words any or claims of no position of God are detectable by brain scan.

So you'll now provide details of the study that says this - yes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let me put it another way.
Brain scans would settle your problem of not being able to distinguish faith claims from guessing.
If they are the same the same parts of the brain would be shown to be working.

Similarly we could answer the question is metaphysical naturalism merely guessing or is atheism merely guessing?

[Shaker]

It was a straight forward proposal that faith would be distinguishable or otherwise from guessing by use of brain scan.

The question of truth would be irrelevant.

You seem to have stitched two contradictory sentences together here.