crocodile deathroll

Although there in nothing quite like "hard facts", you would have to agree some theories are a lot more "crackpotty" than others

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

Lord Asriel

If we use xeren's 2nd class of faith, belief without evidence, then I would suggest that driving to work with the faith that you will not crash would make you an extremely dangerous driver.

Because you had already accepted, before setting out, that you would not have an accident, you would therefore not bother to anticipate or react to anything on the road before you. You could quite cheerfully overtake on a bend, because you have complete faith that there will be no accident, even if another vehicle is coming.

So this definition of faith is not an acceptable path to knowledge - you could not possibly know that you will not have an accident, no matter how much faith you have in it.

quip

No, but faith can be justified. The evaluation of future events are reliant upon past experience. In other words, the fact that one has had prior successful experiences in driving themselves to their intended destination(s), implies having faith in one's driving ability, other's driving ability, correctly functioning stop-lights...etc. is justifiable. Now, 'faith' in God(s) does not and cannot rely on such past experience (numinous experience not withstanding), so this kind of 'faith' is of an "unjustifiable" variety.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: quip ]</p>

emphryio

Given the only meaningful definition of faith.

Faith leads to an decrease in intelligence/awareness which notwithstanding short term luck leads to an increase in pain/death or we can just say, an increase in evil.

For the AVERAGE christian who is practically illiterate outside of reading the McD's menu, lets just say:

Faith is evil.

Calvan

Greeting all, I could not resist reading this post and relating to it.

Your question “Did you know that…” caused me to recall the experience of knowing.
I relate this experience because I am guessing it has something to do with knowing and faith.

Many years ago, I visited a friend who stated that she and the rest of her family had not heard from her sister for over five years and they were worried about her. She indicated that her sister had become alienated from her family of origin and had moved far away to another part of the country.
A few weeks previously I had started reading booklets on religion while on the throne in the morning in the hopes that I might move away from being a non-believer to being religious. I just happened that I had come across an idea of how to pray with effect a day or so before so armed with this new idea and upon hearing of her desire to hear from her sister, I said:

Me: “Do you wish your sister to phone you?”

Her: “Yes.”

Me: “Do you believe in God?”

Her: “Yes.”

Me: “Then if you will pray with me here and now, she will phone you within the next three minutes.”

So she agreed and we were placing two chairs facing each other on which to sit when I decided that I had better change my statement to allow a little more time for the phone call to occur. So I said:

Me: “I am going to change the three minutes to seven minutes. Within seven minutes, she will phone you.”

I clearly remember at the time, there was no doubt in my mind that the phone would ring within the time limits.

So we both sat in the chairs opposite each other and I started to pray. I guess that I had only prayed for about a minute when the phone rang. The lady got up and answered it. After a few minutes of listening to her animated talking into the phone, I mouthed, “Is it your sister?” to which she mouthed “yes” and nodded assent. I left.

My journey into being religious did not last very long. I gave up trying not too long after and found myself trying to explain that experience without relying upon religious doctrine.

The facts as I see them are: 1. I had no doubt that her sister would phone. 2. I prayed. 3. Someone did phone. 4. I inferred that it was her sister given the signals that passed between us.

Not too long after, I gave up on trying to be religious.

Given there is no god, I wonder about the relationship between Knowing and/or faith and the process called prayer.

In retrospect, my relation of this experience may raise some interesting questions from anyone who chooses to trust my veracity and considerable eyebrows of those who do not.

Sincerely,

Calvan

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Calvan ]

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Calvan ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

Evil is a pretty stupid word too. But if I had a "faith" then my "faith" would be atheism and deserves as much respect as any of the others. Why do we have to be such Mr Nice Guys with all other "faiths" when others lay it on so thickly to us.

Keith Russell

Calvan:

Your post contains several fallacies/assumptions.

First, you have only given the members of this forum your words, nothing more. It is easy to string words together any way one wishes, and--on-line--there is no 'evidence', other than your words, with which we can compare your words, to verify their validity.

Second, even if you are telling the truth, coincidence more than explains the situation. It also shows that your assumption (that the prayer 'worked') is a fallacy. Just because you said the sister would call, in no way means that the fact (if you are telling the truth, and it really did happen as you wrote in your post) that the sister called, was caused or in any way influenced by your 'prayers'.

Just because one event precedes another in no way means that the later event was caused by the preceding event.

Just curious, though. You say that--apparently rather soon after this event--you 'gave up' the idea of trying to be religious.

Why?

Keith.

Calvan

Thank you Keith for your comments.

Agreed. I did make the assumption that the lady’s sister was on the phone. I had only my inference from her gestures to make such an assumption; I did not speak to her sister or even know that she existed prior to this visit.

(Please note that I do not consider assumptions to be automatically fallacious. Simply unproven.)

Agreed.

Regarding the question of telling the truth, I resort to two bits of advice I freely offer others. Never believe anything I say. And always evaluate the veracity of what I or anyone else says by drawing upon your own experience.

Of course, I did make the assumption that in order for my story to have any purposes would require that some reader make the assumption that I am speaking the truth as I perceive it. This would require assumption, not belief, on the reader’s part.

I would comfort such a reader by suggesting that assumptions are fairly harmless and sometimes beneficial as long as they remain assumptions and because they are so easily discarded when not validated by experience.

The implication is that for my story to have any value to the forum readers, there would have to be one or more members who have the kind of experience which would allow them to assume that I was telling the truth. Otherwise, the story is irrelevant and a waste of time, not to mention a negative reflection on myself.

In relating my story, I only intended to portray my experience at the time of the visit.

I would be dishonest if I added or omitted any of the events that occurred. It is possible that any number of events occurred of which I was unaware. And it is possible that I deliberately omitted events of which I was aware and thought relevant to the event.

But the latter option makes no sense to me because it flies in the face of my best interests. I have no desire to subject myself to more ridicule from the members of this forum than would naturally arise speaking as truthfully as I can about facts of my experience that may be foreign to the experience of any number of them if not all of them.

Apart from that, it would not serve my interests to betray the intellectual integrity that I value in myself.

I only stated the facts of the events in the order they occurred and as accurately as I could.

In defense of my perception of truth, it was not nor is now my intention that you or anyone should believe what I say or have said.

You might ask, what was my intention in posting this story at all if I did not have the intention to ask anyone to believe what I relate?

My intention was two fold:

Firstly, given the topic faith and Bill Snedden’s emphasis on “know”, I made the assumption that my experience of what I assumed was a form of “knowing” might raise some questions to which I do not have the answers.

Secondly, Bill’s question emphasizing the know in “did you know that….” raised in my mind the issue of certitude being inherent in the state of knowing. I did assume that my single experience of what I assumed was my single experience of such knowing might be relevant. I personally found it interesting.

And, yes, I did think some others might find it interesting as well.

I suggested coincidence in my post. You have no argument from me on this score.

Except during the time that I was trying to be religious, I did not make the assumption that prayer worked. In my post I only stated that I prayed.
As an aside that may be relevant, on more than one occasion subsequent to the occasion of the events, I sat in the presence of a priest and other believers and stated that I did not believe in prayer.

I did allow, however, that there is a possibility that asking oneself a question and listening to the answer was more likely a realistic description of what they labeled prayer and meditation.

Inherent in this admission is that I have had occasion to experience that asking myself questions and listening to the answers has occasionally provided what I subsequently experienced to be valid observations. But this does not mean that I assume prayer (which requires a belief in a god) works.

Or does it? Aren’t I acknowledging that what others do, i.e. pray and meditate actually has a chance of being functional given that I have experienced asking and listening to the answers to have been on occasion functional?

No, I am saying that while there may be a relationship between the two processes, given that there is no god to pray to, they are wasting their time .

On the other hand, I could make the assumption that when one is praying to his deity one is actually speaking to himself. If one has to employ prayer, it makes more sense to me for the person to perceive himself as god and that way one would be more inclined to listen to the answers.

As it is, I prefer to simply ask and then listen to myself.

I find myself having two responses to this statement.

On the one hand, if you mean that there are no supernatural powers impinging upon one event to cause the subsequent event, then I whole-heartedly agree. I can not and do not relate the events in terms of religious doctrine at all. I thought I scrupulously avoided any assumption about the relationship of the praying event to the subsequent assumed events. For me to make that assumption would imply that I believe in god. Given that such a belief would be incongruent with my own sense of intellectual integrity, I suggest that if such an assumption exists, it would have to have been made by other than myself.

On the other hand, if you mean that there cannot be some unknown scientific cause and effect relationship between the events, then I disagree. I see no reason to not look at the sequence of the events as if there were a relationship between the events, for a moment or two, and wonder about the existence of some form of unknown scientific explanation.

Perhaps it is clear by now that I am a person who is looking at his own experience and making out of it what he can to understand what is real.

This question is the most obvious challenge I expected to encounter. It goes to the heart of my credibility.

I decided when I was eleven that I would depend upon my own senses to provide me with any answers that I sought. I decided that I could not believe in a god or any of the doctrine related thereto. Much later in my life, I had created a serious illness in myself recovery from which I was told by those from whom I sought help I would require, among other behaviors, belief in religion. So on the assumption that these authorities were correct, I set about trying to get religion from some pamphlets I was given to read. After a time, perhaps weeks, perhaps months, I don’t remember exactly, I decided that any recovery that I would make from my illnesses would be as a consequence of my own choices rather than dependence on any religious doctrine.

Many years of subsequent history have validated that assumption.

Thank you for the challenging questions.

Calvan

Keith Russell

Calvan:

You 'created a serious illness in yourself', recovery from which required a belief in 'God'?

I can think of only one type of affliction (I am reluctant to refer to such situations as 'illnesses', which is usually treated via faith-based support). My wife is recovering, also, (I believe) from a similar affliction. Like you, chose not to accept a faith-based 'cure'.

Best of luck to you.

Keith.

Atticus_Finch

I am a Christian. I find that I define Christian "faith" differently than it has been discussed here. Let me elaborate.

A Christian must have "faith" in the promises of God. One can only believe that Jesus is returning and that he will save those who believe in Him if he/she has "faith" in His promises to do so.

Belief in God's, or a person's future actions, is not subject to proof. For example, you may have "faith" that your wife will pick you up from work today. You have "faith" that she will do so because she said that she would and because she has always done so before. Your "faith" is not subject to proof. Likewise, no one can prove whether Jesus will return or not at this point.

As a Christian I have "faith" that Jesus will return because I have reviewed the relevant information regarding Him and His promises and believe that my "faith" is justified. That is why historical proof and facts are so important to Christianity. The Apostle Paul spelled out when he said that unless Jesus has risen from the dead, a Christian's "faith" is in vain. Therefore, if Jesus did not really live, perform miracles, claim to be devine, die and rise from the dead, and promise to return to earth then it is pointless to believe that he will return. I do not believe those things about Him as a matter of "faith" but belief in them causes me to have "faith" in His promise to return.

I hope this clarifies the issue. It is not my intent to re-open the recurring debate as to whether the historical evidence is sufficient to support my beliefs about Jesus' life and resurrection but rather to explain that I do not believe those things as a matter of "faith".

Regards,

Finch