What is faith? Really?

[mistermack]

When it comes to the existence of a god, or gods, we're all in the same boat really. As far as evidence goes.
The same evidence is available to everybody.
But some have faith that there is a supernatural. And some on our side profess faith that there isn't any supernatural. To declare that you are sure requires faith BOTH WAYS. Because the evidence isn't there.

Some on the side of atheism declare that supernatural claims are so special, that the onus of proof should be on the yes camp. That the default position should be no belief in anything, until there is good evidence for it.

Do you think that the belief that there IS NO god is just as illogical as the belief in a god ?

Personally, I think that faith is nothing more than the ability to switch off one side of the argument in your brain. To flatly refuse to even contemplate that the other side is even possible. You just don't let your mind go there.

I'm saying, don't declare that you ''believe'' that there is no god. Declare that it's incredibly highly unlikely. Even though it doesn't sound as good.

Does the pope ''believe'' that there is a god, or does he just refuse to contemplate the opposite?
I think it's the latter.

[rainbow]

Reality is an illusion, therefore nothing exists.

[Hermit]

Do you think that the belief that there IS NO god is just as illogical as the belief in a god ?

Yes, I do. That's why I am an agnostic. If convincing evidence turns up proving the existence of some supernatural creator of everything, I'll be happy to believe. In its absence I see no point in Pascal's wager. Too many Gods to choose from. So, philosophically agnostic, behaviourally atheistic.

[Faithfree]

Do you think that the belief that there IS NO god is just as illogical as the belief in a god ?

Yes, I do. That's why I am an agnostic. If convincing evidence turns up proving the existence of some supernatural creator of everything, I'll be happy to believe. In its absence I see no point in Pascal's wager. Too many Gods to choose from. So, philosophically agnostic, behaviourally atheistic.

I hold exactly the same position, except I call myself an atheist. I used to call myself an agnostic, even though I was equally convinced of the non-existence of evidence for a god then, as I am now. It's just the label you get comfortable with. I'm always open to looking at any purported evidence of any god, but as yet nothing has even made it quarter way to first base.

[Tero]

Well, it's not like global warming, which we can measure. We even have cause and effect. In religious phenomena "it must be God" is the cause.

[Hermit]

Well, it's not like global warming, which we can measure.

Elsewhere in this forum this question was asked: What would it take for you to believe in God? I thought of a scenario that might work, at least for an interventionist, personal one. A lot of Christians (and not only Christians, come to think of it) believe in the power and efficacy of prayer. Well, it should be possible to empirically test for the existence of their God. Gather, say, 40,000 people suffering from trachoma and divide them into four groups. One will be treated by doctors, one will be prayed for, one will be prayed for and treated by doctors and one will be utterly ignored. The result will be pretty convincing if the prayed for groups fare best. If it doesn't, of course, it proves nothing. Perhaps God was busy having a shit at the time, or maybe he just hates some sinners and gave them trachoma as punishment. Or he might have played his favourite trick: he was testing his followers' faith.

Still, if experiments of the kind I just sketched can be repeated with similarly favourable results for the prayed for groups, it could be said that evidence for a personal, interventionist God has been provided.

[Thinking Aloud]

Do you think that the belief that there IS NO god is just as illogical as the belief in a god ?

Yes, I do. That's why I am an agnostic. If convincing evidence turns up proving the existence of some supernatural creator of everything, I'll be happy to believe. In its absence I see no point in Pascal's wager. Too many Gods to choose from. So, philosophically agnostic, behaviourally atheistic.

I hold exactly the same position, except I call myself an atheist. I used to call myself an agnostic, even though I was equally convinced of the non-existence of evidence for a god then, as I am now. It's just the label you get comfortable with. I'm always open to looking at any purported evidence of any god, but as yet nothing has even made it quarter way to first base.

I've always treated gnostic-agnostic and theist-atheist as separate things, the former being a declaration related to knowledge, the latter related to a belief in something. Agnostic doesn't fall somewhere between theist and atheist - it's a different thing.

[Hermit]

Do you think that the belief that there IS NO god is just as illogical as the belief in a god ?

Yes, I do. That's why I am an agnostic. If convincing evidence turns up proving the existence of some supernatural creator of everything, I'll be happy to believe. In its absence I see no point in Pascal's wager. Too many Gods to choose from. So, philosophically agnostic, behaviourally atheistic.

I hold exactly the same position, except I call myself an atheist. I used to call myself an agnostic, even though I was equally convinced of the non-existence of evidence for a god then, as I am now. It's just the label you get comfortable with. I'm always open to looking at any purported evidence of any god, but as yet nothing has even made it quarter way to first base.

I've always treated gnostic-agnostic and theist-atheist as separate things, the former being a declaration related to knowledge, the latter related to a belief in something. Agnostic doesn't fall somewhere between theist and atheist - it's a different thing.

True. There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. You can slot me into the agnostic atheist pigeonhole.

[cronus]

Keep it simps. Faith is integrity of moral character and keeping with some ideal or religion or person through good and bad times. Try it America.

[Tero]

Hermit, it would not prove anything. Only that belief in a god helped some patients. It wasn't god, just the belief.

Belief often couples with optimism. It affects some people that way. I've never had the level of belief to change my attitude. Even when I pretended to be Lutheran. On the other hand, I rarely get depressed.

[Thinking Aloud]

Do you think that the belief that there IS NO god is just as illogical as the belief in a god ?

Yes, I do. That's why I am an agnostic. If convincing evidence turns up proving the existence of some supernatural creator of everything, I'll be happy to believe. In its absence I see no point in Pascal's wager. Too many Gods to choose from. So, philosophically agnostic, behaviourally atheistic.

I hold exactly the same position, except I call myself an atheist. I used to call myself an agnostic, even though I was equally convinced of the non-existence of evidence for a god then, as I am now. It's just the label you get comfortable with. I'm always open to looking at any purported evidence of any god, but as yet nothing has even made it quarter way to first base.

I've always treated gnostic-agnostic and theist-atheist as separate things, the former being a declaration related to knowledge, the latter related to a belief in something. Agnostic doesn't fall somewhere between theist and atheist - it's a different thing.

True. There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. You can slot me into the agnostic atheist pigeonhole.

Yup. Me too. That's the position that doesn't require any faith.

[mistermack]

What got me thinking about faith is the various claims, that so many Americans are Christians, so many are Atheists etc etc.

I think the real picture is very different. How many Christians, BELIEVE deep down?
Does the word BELIEVE mean that you have no doubt? I BELIEVE it does. Otherwise, you don't believe it, you just think it's very likely.

If you actually could tell, and apply that definition, I think you would find that less than one percent of Americans BELIEVE in god.
They might say that they do, and deny any doubt. But I think deep down, there must be some tiny doubt lurking. I think most people say what they think they SHOULD say. Rather than what they actually feel.

Maybe they have the ability ''not to go there'' when the question of doubt comes up. Some do, but I think most experience little niggling doubts, then decide that there's not much point in going there, that they would only make themselves miserable and unpopular, and so they banish the thought.

If you can call that belief, then yes, belief in god is up in the seventy percents.
But I can't call that belief. It's more wishful thinking, coupled with the habit of a lifetime.

[Tero]

I think pretty much all Christians, other than a small part, are in the some doubt category. Including the ministers. They interpret all kinds of personal tragedy as "god is testing you."

[Hermit]

Hermit, it would not prove anything. Only that belief in a god helped some patients. It wasn't god, just the belief.

The patients don't need to know who is being prayed for. They don't even need to know that a group of theists is praying for any of them.

Anyway, the experiment will never be done on a sufficiently big scale. It's too expensive, and who would take the responsibility of not giving half of the subjects any effective treatment?

[Hermit]

What got me thinking about faith is the various claims, that so many Americans are Christians, so many are Atheists etc etc.

I think the real picture is very different. How many Christians, BELIEVE deep down?

That question arises in regard to many countries. The British Humanist Association has produced a rather large graphic analysis of just how Christian the UK is. The result is very different compared to the figure the census comes up with.