Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think your professor and I agree on a lot then. I wrote an extensive paper on the corilation between faith and reality....and how the skeptic proves faith is a necesity of existance.

It wasn't my best paper but the trouble with man is that no one wants to have faith in anything anymore, they continually seek to turn faith into belief and then into knowledge. While the persuit of knowledge is not a bad thing, having faith that "knowledge" is actually what you have is necessary and cannot be proven with more knowledge. At some point there has to be some faith....there has to be a moment where you are perfectly ok with accepting something's truth without needing more proof of it.

I have noticed most philosophers have trouble with that concept.

I am in no way suggesting that "faith" is singularly a "spiritual" thing. In point of fact the type of faith that I am refering to a pure faith based solely on the definition itself.

When I wrote my paper, as a form of research I asked about 20 people how they would define faith. Of course the Christians all quoted Hebrews 11:1, but that doesn't provide any acurate depiction of what faith really is.

Hebrews 11:1 says:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the evidance of things unseen"

And in some ways that is kind of correct but I then asked "Well what does that even mean? The assurance of things hoped for? Evidance of things unseen?" They had no idea how to answer at first but then in the end wound up explaining it just as the dictionary would define it.

Essentially that verse is the driving force behind the english definition which my atheist and non christian friends all gave me when I asked for their definitions.

Unanomously in the end each and every person said the same thing....that faith is essentially the acceptance of something as truth without the plausability of proof.

It is different from simple belief in that one word plausability essentially meaning the difference between faith and belief is merely that belief is accepting something as true, even though you can't prove it right now and faith is accepting something as true while knowing you could never possibly prove it.

A small textual difference is huge when put into practice. But you can see why the skeptic is a huge help in furthering faith, as any good skeptic will tell you that you could never prove anything ever, beyond the fact that something that is driving your thoughts exists somewhere. This is Decartes famous "I think therefore I am" statement. Some would contest that he cannot say that he himself is driving his thought but the fact still remains that something somewhere is. Beyond that we have yet, to date, been able to prove anything beyond all doubt.

We can then conclude that since our existance is not in question and can be proven we no longer need to believe it....it is knowledge...we know it, and knowledge implies truth, truth entails no doubt and thus we need no faith OR belief, once it is "known" to us. But thanks to skeptics like Sextus Empiricus, David Hume, Neitche and many others we also are aware that nothing else in this reality is completely provable beyond doubt. If that is true the only certainty we have is of our own uncertainty....but since we know we exist as a thinking thing and that is "truth" then beyond that we must accept this reality without the plausability of proof of its true existance.

This can be shown in science very simply, the easiest and most reliable forms of faith lie in scientific law. We act on faith all of the time. Every time I have sat in my chair it has held me up, it is quite likely that it will hold me up this next time I try it....but ask me to prove it and I simply cannot remove all doubt. And indeed there will come a time when the chair will not hold me up.

Of course this is easy faith to come by, but it is still faith by the very definition, as we cannot know the future, and thus could never defeat the skeptic when he doubts that the chair will hold me up this time.

The skeptic is important to faith in that it is a constant reminder of the "true" uncertainty of the reality that we live in. A constant reminder that faith is a necessary part of our existance, we must opperate under the acceptance of many things as true without the ability to prove them.

These are, of course, different examples of faith then any kind of faith in a deity, but they are not that much different. They display the same idea. You can go on saying that reality is the only true thing, that no deity created us or that God doesn't exist, but in truth.....how do you know? You are already displaying that you have faith in your own statements, being that you could never possibly prove yourself right because you cannot see into the future, nor can you envision the corpereal or ethereal.

Saying that no God exists is quite simple when you are so sure that reality is certain, but once reminded that even your perception of reality itself can quite easily be doubted all together right down to your very physical existance then suddenly it doesn't seem so impossible to fathom that there may be a God after all. Once reminded that faith in SOMETHING is absolutely necessary, suddenly you become a hypocrit for claiming someone's faith in God is unfounded when your own faith is just as doubtable. We, of course, owe this to the skeptic.

It is funny that sometimes the ramifications of one's own statements when completely understood, can leave them with no ground to stand on.

Does it now seem so irrational to have faith in some sort of religious Godhead, when you consider that in order to not believe in one you must have faith that he/she/it does not exist just as well? What then is the difference between what a Christian says and what an Atheist says in rationality? When it comes down to it...neither can prove their side, and neither can escape the fact that they REQUIRE faith in order to LIVE let alone make their statements and thus they are essentially practicing the same ideas of faith. It is just that one is fooling himself by saying he has no faith, which is self defeating, and the other is fooling themselves into certainty.

Which is the last of the problems with faith....faith requires a degree of uncertainty. Sure I am "relatively" certain my chair will hold me up for the next five minutes but it would be a bold certainty that is ultimately unfounded when someone askes me "HOW" I know it will hold me up. Any claim of "knowledge" made by someone who claims to have faith is a fallacy...a conflict of terms...just as much so as someone who claims that you should have no faith at all, as that is self defeating and thus impossible. This is the most taxing of the problems with faith, most especially found in religion. Faith requires uncertainty to a certain degree, and so anyone claiming to have both "knowledge" and "faith" about something are both missguided and speaking irrationally essentially speaking nonsensical things.

I had this discussion with a friend the other day...a most frustrating friend of the Christian persuasion. He wanted to tell me that his experiences of the "holy spirit" (which is contreversial in itself) were what gave him certainty, and that any christian experiences a form of life change that gives evidance to their faith and thus gives them the right to say they "know". I asked a very simple question, "To know what? That God changed them? How do they know it was God and not some emotional empathy with the people around them, or some great epiphone of rationalization that made them realize they were wrong and needed to change?" He said, "Because they were praying to God while they did it." I laughed a little and said "And when a muslim does it? And what about a Hindu? Or a Buhdist? They ALL share similar stories of the same exact events describing them in exactly the same manor...in point of fact so do Aethists who claim they had some eye opening experience that led them to the "truth", so I'll ask again how this is proof that they can claim they "know" anything?" He could only stare at me and say "They just know". I chuckled and shook my head saying, "And for them, I'm sure that is good enough, but for me...that is more irrational then if they had never opened their mouth to speak in the first place."

In the end the skeptics are the people out there such as myself (to a degree) who constantly remind those who claim such certainty that they really don't "know" anything at all, but that they shouldn't feel so strongly that they have to. For if they are claiming to have "faith" then they are first admitting they could never prove what they have faith in, and second, stating that they are comfortable enough with its truth that they need not know for certain.

Does this make sense? Without skeptics we would not be reminded of this uncertainty, and would feign assurance when in point of fact, we could never "know" and if we could.....we would not have faith we would have knowledge which implies truth, which requires no faith....and is impossible. Skeptics not only remind us that faith is possible....but that faith is a NECESSARY condition of our existance.

We can be certain we exist....after that faith is imediately born and cannot be escaped as we make statements of ascertion all the time which require that we be at least slightly certain of the truth of something even though we could not possibly prove it....such as me sitting in this chair. I am 99% certain it will hold me up for the next ten minutes, but it is that last 1%.....that 1% of doubt....that makes faith necessary.

One last explanation....attempting to make a statement like "Faith is a myth" is a statement of ascertion...attempt to prove that faith is a myth and you wind up unable to do so and thus the statement "faith is a myth" is actually a statement of a type of faith itself. Put into other words, based on the definition of faith we can change the sentance to "I have faith that there is no faith" since all statements about reality are not provable statements with the acception of the statement of "I exist". In essence any statement that cannot be proven is essentially a stement that can have the premise of "I have faith that..." at its begining.

I have faith that there is no God, I have faith that Aethism is true, I have faith that there are no supernatural beings.....those statements make the idea of God seem just as plausable as the idea that he does not exist, since both statements require the same thing..........

Faith.......thanks to the skeptic.

This turned out way longer then I had intended so if it gets confusing then please ask me to clearify whatever part is confusing.

Dissagree if you like but this entire paragraph is riddled with statements of faith.

"I have yet to see convincing proof of these beings" and "Lacking a belief, for me anyway, is not the same as believing in a lack... if that makes sense?" seems to me to be completely contridictory....don't they to you? One is a statement of faith....as if I asked you to prove to me that you don't have sufficient proof. Give me some hard evidance that it actually and truely isn't sufficient and you cannot, all you can give me are subjective points of view and opinions which are not proof they are statements of faith......so essentially you are claiming the exact thing I stated....you have faith that the evidance provided is telling you the right thing....that so far it is inadequate to prove God exists.

But the real point of the matter here is that you are contredicting yourself, either there isn't sufficient proof and so therefore you have faith in a lack, or there is suficient proof and you have incorrect faith. It is not that you lack faith....as I said, faith is a necessity of existance, you cannot exist without displaying faith in some form or another and of course that is all thanks to the skeptic.

Stating quite simply that you have no "faith" is a statement of faith itself....and is also self defeating and impossible.

Now, to this first part.



You may dissagree with it all you want, but the only reason you dissagree with it that I can see by what you are stating here is merely because you don't like the question, and that is no reason to dissagree with the answer.

"I cannot accept that this philosophical idea that we might not exist as we think we do."

I shall respond to that statement with a simple question.

So?

What you can and cannot accept has absolutely no bearing at all on how much of reality you can actually prove. Accept it or not, what we have sufficient proof for is that your senses can be decieved and truth be told....the matrix theory (brain in a vat or what ever you want to call it) is just exactly as likely to be true as it is to be false, so all you are really doing is stating a strong ascertive faith in the idea that this reality is truely the right reality, which may very well be the case but the fact remains still....

If I were to walk up to you one day and say "Dear so and so, how do you know these things are really here?" You can quite literally say nothing more than "Because there is enough reason for me to think they are that I have come to have faith in their existance." Any claim that you "know" they are is just plain wrong, you don't know that they are, and if they turn out to be then you are right by accident, not by knowledge.

Whynaut I do believe your perception of God is inherently flawed. You've been listening to too many southern baptist preachers to gain your so called knowledge of God. Let me see if I can deal with your points one by one here.



Here is my two cents on God. I am an atheist, I guess. But I do not disbelieve in God because of science, or because of the evil in the world, etc. etc. What I don't believe in is what God stands for:

+God is the ultimate good.
-I don't believe in good or evil, and I definitely don't think that we should be told what they are.

--You don't believe in Good or Evil? There is no bad or good then? There is no suffering at the loss of a family member or does it not hurt when you stub your toe? You have confused a linguistic problem with a Thiest problem. Good...is a human term that we use to describe things that incite feelings of elation and arousal...God did not define it, we did. Bad...is those feelings that cause us to feel negatively, in ways we don't like.

If God had been a God of fire and damnation and a terrible being of complete and utter hate, then we will call fire and damnation good because they are the nature of our creator, hate would be acceptance and we would call it love because it represents that which we hold most sacred. If the devil had created a world, would he not be pleased by the display of those things which are opposite of God and therefore teach the beings in that world that THEY are in fact good?

+God has a plan.
-The universe I perceive is random and meaningless. It moves "backward" as well as "forward." There does not seem to be a point.

The universe you percieve may not be the actual universe. We do age in a singular direction, and whether it be backward or forward is a matter of relative perspective and we simply call it foreward...again linguistics...

Another problem is that if the universe is random and chaotic then you wouldn't be able to interpret these sentences I'm writing at all, so your perception is inherrently missinterpreted even to yourself. You THINK you are percieving chaos when in fact there MUST be order for you to even be able to percieve anything at all.

And lets begin by admitting God exists...if he does then he created the world in whatever way you percieve it...and created you with the ability to percieve it correctly or incorrectly and so....how is this in support of a God you wouldn't want? Is it possible that God exists and created everything without a real plan? Is that possible?

+God is all powerful.
-Everything is powerless. Even if we could change reality, reality can change back on us to its own "whim." What could/has God do/done that could not be undone?

If reality really is chaotic then it doesn't act on whims or fancies...it in fact...doesn't act at all. To act would be to cause something to happen, but if the world is random and chaotic then there is no causality and therefore nothing is responsible for any other action...if you deny causality then I'll ask you this...when you drop a pen does it hit the floor? Every time? If causality isn't true then you couldn't drop a pen...because you could not flex your muscles...they would simply flex at random...so the pen might be released from your hand but not because YOU dropped it, but because at random your muscles happened to flex....and the pen MIGHT drop, or it may float to the cieling, but whether it does or not will not be predictable. You are describing a world that cannot possibly exist *shrugs* And if it does then you could not describe it.

But that is not what is at hand here....let me ask you this....lets say your world does exist. And it is chaotic and random. Could God NOT have created it that way?

I cannot say that there is no God because I lack evidence. What I can say is that even if there is a God, I don't want him. So no, I don't believe in God.

What about what you feel? Certainly you are not so arrogant as to think that in the way things actually ARE in this universe...that your insignificant feelings and thoughts on them are actually important. That would be in the reverse of what should be the case. Should we be attempting to discover what is important rather then ascerting what SHOULD be important and then attempting to explain how the world works starting from there?



Thus the reason chaos is impossible. Chaos is not probabalistic. If it were then it would be systematic.....predictable. The idea of chaos is that it is "uncalculatable" and thus cannot be broken down into statistics.

And in all actuality the idea that you are comprehending the sentence I wrote is proof enough for what I said. You understood it...which means very simply, that you knew what the words meant when you read it. Whether you agree or dissagree with them is irrelevent. I could write them as mathmatical equations and you'd still understand them the same, you'd just try and deny their truth....but the mere fact that you can interpret the words themselves....as in that THE = THE for both of us makes your arguement moot.



You speak of the universe as though it had a will....but it does not. You speak of the universe as if it were a thinking thing...and if it were and were capable of directing itself then you are speaking of God in the same way Spinoza did in the 14th century. If there is some being who could put the sun next to earth and still sustain life and then something else that is outside of his control could undo it then that thing is not God.

Your depiction of God is skewed, you are assuming first that the universe is chaotic and uncontrollable and was here before God made it be here. But what if it wasn't? And if it is chaotic then logic is flawed and if logic is flawed then how did you come to your conclusion? Your response has many many holes in it. You are begining by thinking that something that was created is outside of the control of it's creator.

If God created both the earth AND the sun right next to each other then do you not think he would have the presence of mind to think ahead and make some sun that couldn't supernova so that the earth would remain? You are assuming a God that is not all powerful and i thus not God. He is inferrior to some other thing. That is not God.

I cannot help you with your faith about God and his doings...nor would I try, but I will tell you that if you would like to present arguements then at least begin with the idea that things may very well not be the way you percieve them as I'm sure you're quite aware human perception is very flawed.

If that is the case then I understand your whole arguement to entirely agree with mine and thus we are not at odds. *shrugs* If the words you say didn't have implied meaning that you were attempting to convey you wouldn't use them. If you say they are inherrently confusing and relative then nothing I say will ever have meaning as will nothing you say and we may as well be speaking foreign languages.



Keep in mind that I am merely showing you flaws in your own arguement from another point of view, I have not in any way conveyed my own feelings on the matter. I do dissagree with you yes but you do not know what my actual thoughts are on the matter and so you are assuming my arguements support my ideas, but that may not be the case.

Of course, but I do not assume the way I view the universe is correct either.

In point of fact I make the very point you make above to just about everyone I study or teach with. I make sure to point out that in situations of faith and knowledge there remains this bubble of human understanding that neccessitates that we are intrinsically wrong about everything, and the only way we are right is by accident, simply because there are things we could not ever possibly "know" (which includes most things really)

But by your same arguement, just because I don't know does not mean I cannot have some answer. Would you rather be mostly right because thats as right as you can be, or would you rather not try at all?

Essentially what I am saying is that while we are intrinsically wrong about reality as a whole that does not mean there is not a right view. It just means we could never know which one is right for certain and so we are left to go by faith (in a loose non theological sense) that that which makes the most sense when the world is viewed as objectively as we can, must be the most right being that it is right enough based solely on the reality we can experience.

I may be wrong about the whole of reality, and I am willing to accept that and in fact embrace it, but at the very least I am willing to give my best effort to get as close to right as I can be.

Your view compared to mine is that you also recognize man's inability to know, and also his trait of being intrinsically wrong, but recognizing that you give up and say "Well what the hell is the point then! I'll never find the answer!" And so you say that reality is chaotic and out life is meaningless because if man can't figure it out then it must not have the trait of being reasonable (since we cannot reason into knowledge about it). But as I said....the absence of one does not breed the other.

The idea that I am intrinsically wrong about something does not mean there is not a right answer....just as the idea that man cannot percieve the world correctly does not mean there is not a correct way to percieve the world.

I'm ranting now.....I'll stop.