Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Why do religious believers need 'faith'?

  • 06-08-2013 08:44PM
    #1
    wretcheddomain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    I never really understood this but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

    Faith is belief in something with insufficient or negligible evidence because if there was sufficient evidence then we wouldn't need faith. I think that's an uncontroversial definition to start off with.

    If God intended us to have more and more faith then that must mean that he deliberately obscured his presence to make his existence somewhat uncertain, after all, there would be no atheists if his presence was made certain.

    Thus, the difficulties I have with this concept are:

    1) Why would a God, so powerful as can be, play games of deception to make his existence uncertain such that he can reward those who recognise such uncertainty in his existence? Does this just not appear like petty mind-games?
    ...and
    2) Why is this method of deliberate uncertainty a better method than revealing himself such that no doubts could exist.

    In conclusion, why do we need 'faith' at all to be religious believers?

    The floor is open to the good members of the forum.


«1345

Comments

  • #2
    Lawrence Unsightly Goose-step
    Posts: 81,308 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Lawrence Unsightly Goose-step


    Because then you get to feel extra special because you figured something out that most people didn't
    If everyone knows the truth, how are you going to feel special?


  • #3
    wretcheddomain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Because then you get to feel extra special because you figured something out that most people didn't
    If everyone knows the truth, how are you going to feel special?

    That's a good stab at it and this question only goes to reveal the psychology of religious believers rather than the ground-breaking 'good news' they feel they've discovered.


  • #4
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Because then you get to feel extra special because you figured something out that most people didn't
    If everyone knows the truth, how are you going to feel special?

    extra special = 'chosen' people.


  • #5
    wretcheddomain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    extra special = 'chosen' people.

    Yes - but does anyone know what logic, or lack thereof, that believers use to justify the 'concept' of faith. They must have some sort of rationale, however banal, surely?


  • #6
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Because if religious people relied on anything besides faith, they wouldn't be religious for long.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    wretcheddomain wrote: »
    I never really understood this but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

    Stop being so hard on yourself; you're not missing anything, you're just hindered by logic!!


  • #8
    wretcheddomain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    When I watch debates between atheists and those of a religious persuasion, I can't help but cringe when I hear the 'F word' because if I was on such a panel, my immediate response would be to ask that individual to justify exactly why faith is needed. If they can't answer it effectively, then they basically admit their belief is foundationless. I often find in many of these religious debates, including the one with VB the other night, that the premise is granted for 'faith' and never questioned or interrogated for justification purposes.


  • #9
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    wretcheddomain wrote: »
    I never really understood this but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

    Faith is belief in something with insufficient or negligible evidence because if there was sufficient evidence then we wouldn't need faith. I think that's an uncontroversial definition to start off with.

    If God intended us to have more and more faith then that must mean that he deliberately obscured his presence to make his existence somewhat uncertain, after all, there would be no atheists if his presence was made certain.

    Thus, the difficulties I have with this concept are:

    1) Why would a God, so powerful as can be, play games of deception to make his existence uncertain such that he can reward those who recognise such uncertainty in his existence? Does this just not appear like petty mind-games?
    ...and
    2) Why is this method of deliberate uncertainty a better method than revealing himself such that no doubts could exist.

    In conclusion, why do we need 'faith' at all to be religious believers?

    The floor is open to the good members of the forum.

    Not a bad question. For what it's worth i'll try to shed a little light on the subject;

    Faith is one of the 3 theological virtues.

    In Catholic theology, it is held that these virtues differ from the cardinal virtues in that they can not be obtained by human effort. A person can only receive them by their being "infused"—through Divine grace—into the person.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Theological_virtues.html

    Read the whole article, it's not too long. You can't actually acquire Faith on your own, it has to be given to you by God. There is only one condition for receiving it and it's an easy one.http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Faith.htm


  • #10
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    Not a bad question. For what it's worth i'll try to shed a little light on the subject;

    Faith is one of the 3 theological virtues.

    In Catholic theology, it is held that these virtues differ from the cardinal virtues in that they can not be obtained by human effort. A person can only receive them by their being "infused"—through Divine grace—into the person.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Theological_virtues.html

    Read the whole article, it's not too long. You can't actually acquire Faith on your own, it has to be given to you by God. There is only one condition for receiving it and it's an easy one.http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Faith.htm


    Well that wasn't a load of poorly thought out dingo's kidneys.


  • #11
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    Not a bad question. For what it's worth i'll try to shed a little light on the subject;

    BLIND Faith is one of the 3 theological virtues.

    FTFY.

    What are the other 2? Bigotry and misogyny?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Why do religious believers need 'faith'?

    Because George Michael said so. ;)

    Fresh!!!!


  • #13
    wretcheddomain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    <snip content moved to other thread.>

    I've now got some renewed faith that the thread can re-focus itself back on...er...faith.


  • #14
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    wretcheddomain wrote: »
    <snip content moved to other thread.>

    I've now got some renewed faith that the thread can re-focus itself back on...er...faith.

    Your faith has been rewarded. All discussion of Nationalism should take this place in this new thread.

    Ta :)


  • #15
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    joseph brand wrote: »
    FTFY.

    What are the other 2? Bigotry and misogyny?
    Sarky wrote: »
    Well that wasn't a load of poorly thought out dingo's kidneys.


    See, this is what bugs me about this forum. A poster genuinely tries to answer the question from a religious and faith based point of view and all he/she gets abuse, mockery and scorn. The poster imo was genuine maybe some people should afford them a bit of courtisey back? Is that the level of discourse we can expect?


  • #16
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    Not a bad question. For what it's worth i'll try to shed a little light on the subject;

    Faith is one of the 3 theological virtues.
    I would imagine that Faith is classed as a virtue by the clerical class because it essentially boils down to: 'If I say you should have faith it means I don't have to bother proving anything'. Faith is what you have when you have no evidence, nor any hope of finding any evidence. I can have faith in the inherent goodness of people because the inherent goodness of people is disputable, no-one has faith water is wet. Faith is a wish. Faith is make-believe to make yourself feel better.


  • #17
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭swampgas


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    Not a bad question. For what it's worth i'll try to shed a little light on the subject;

    Faith is one of the 3 theological virtues.

    In Catholic theology, [...]

    Yep, but can you define faith in a way someone who knows nothing about Catholic theology would understand?

    Otherwise you might get caught up with circular definitions: "Faith is defined by Catholicism as such and such, and I believe that this is a correct definition because I have faith in the Catholic religion" ?


  • #18
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    wretcheddomain wrote: »
    Faith is belief in something with insufficient or negligible evidence because if there was sufficient evidence then we wouldn't need faith.

    Just like belief in the origin of life by abiogenesis.

    Hey atheists, keep the faith!


  • #19
    EdenHazard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭EdenHazard


    Maybe god doesn't care if people believe or not, that's just something humans have interpreted as so.


  • #20
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    jank wrote: »
    See, this is what bugs me about this forum. A poster genuinely tries to answer the question from a religious and faith based point of view and all he/she gets abuse, mockery and scorn. The poster imo was genuine maybe some people should afford them a bit of courtisey back? Is that the level of discourse we can expect?

    The mockery and scorn says more about the poster rather than the reply to the post...

    I think it's more of a cognitive thing,or a behavioural problem lol

    Let's just say I wouldn't ask them for directions you could end up in Athlone rather than Doolin :-)


  • #21
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭swampgas


    mickrock wrote: »
    Just like belief in the origin of life by abiogenesis.

    Hey atheists, keep the faith!

    I accept abiogenesis based on the available evidence, but I'll change my mind if new evidence emerges to the contrary. That's not "faith".


    And your faith (if you have one) is based on what exactly? What was drummed into you as a child perhaps?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,214 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    mickrock wrote: »
    Just like belief in the origin of life by abiogenesis.

    Hey atheists, keep the faith!

    Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?

    I suppose you haven't read any scientific journals in the few months before you decided to return here.


  • #23
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    EdenHazard wrote: »
    Maybe god doesn't care if people believe or not, that's just something humans have interpreted as so.

    Maybe god doesn't exist at all and humans just need to believe there is a big daddy in the sky who rewards them when they are 'good'*, punishes them when they are 'bad'* and helps them out in times of trouble. 'We' don't need to be afraid in this big scary universe as our daddy made the universe and we are his special creation so he will mind us. Of course, Big Sky Daddy gets very cross if we doubt anything about him so we wouldn't want to be doing that now would we else there will be hell to pay...

    As there is no proof of the existence of Big Sky Daddy it has to be taken on 'Faith' - i.e. a belief in something regardless of the amount of actual evidence.



    * 'good' and 'bad' as defined by those who claim to speak for God.


  • #24
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As there is no proof of the existence of Big Sky Daddy it has to be taken on 'Faith' - i.e. a belief in something regardless of the amount of actual evidence.

    ... and as "Faith (TM)" is obviously quite silly, we need to imbue it with special magical trusty goodness, so that somehow having "Faith (TM)" makes you a better nicer person, unlike those nasty cynical old atheists.

    Although I suppose if you can get children to accept the concept of faith, on ... faith, perhaps, then your job is done. It's a circular-logic virus inserted straight into their developing minds.


  • #25
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    swampgas wrote: »
    I accept abiogenesis based on the available evidence, but I'll change my mind if new evidence emerges to the contrary. That's not "faith".

    There is no available evidence, so you have faith in it.

    You "accept" it because it appeals to your worldview.


  • #26
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭swampgas


    mickrock wrote: »
    There is no available evidence, so you have faith in it.

    You "accept" it because it appeals to your worldview.

    I accept it provisionally, based on the available evidence - like I accept many other things - but I don't think you can argue that that's the same as religious faith, which is explicitly NOT based on evidence at all, but on making a choice to believe something.

    To me, choosing to believe some arbitrary thing is no more than self-deception, and not a positive thing to do.


  • #27
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mickrock wrote: »
    There is no available evidence, so you have faith in it.

    You "accept" it because it appeals to your worldview.

    No available evidence you say?
    Have you told NASA as they seem to believe they found evidence 13 years ago...
    "The discovery of this sugar molecule in a cloud from which new stars are forming means it is increasingly likely that the chemical precursors to life are formed in such clouds long before planets develop around the stars," said Jan M. Hollis of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD
    http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20jun_1/


  • #28
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    There is no available evidence, so you have faith in it.
    There's loads of evidence Mick, so please don't claim that everybody here is as clueless about it as you are.


  • #29
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No available evidence you say?
    Have you told NASA as they seem to believe they found evidence 13 years ago...

    You're really clutching at straws with this sort of stuff.

    As time goes on abiogenesis research is going nowhere fast. At least admit that belief in it is faith-based.


  • #30
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    For those who haven't had time to read the 2 articles I linked to here is another snippet to help clarify what we are talking about;What the Theological Virtue of Faith Is Not:

    Most of the time when people use the word faith, they mean something other than the theological virtue. The Oxford American Dictionary presents as its first definition "complete trust or confidence in someone or something," and offers "one's faith in politicians" as an example. Most people understand instinctively that faith in politicians is an entirely different thing from faith in God. But the use of the same word tends to muddy the waters, and to reduce the theological virtue of faith in the eyes of nonbelievers to nothing more than a belief that is strongly, and in their minds irrationally, held. Thus faith is opposed, in the popular understanding, to reason; the latter, it is said, demands evidence, while the former is characterized by the willing acceptance of things for which there is no rational evidence.

    http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Faith.htm


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    As time goes on abiogenesis research is going nowhere fast.
    And how exactly do you know that, since you know nothing about abiogenesis, or even biology?


Advertisement
Advertisement