Why do religious believers need 'faith'?

Sarky · 07-08-2013 01:48PM

Which sounds like religion made up its own definition of faith so it wouldn't be bogged down by pesky things like the need for evidence, it what the rest of the world takes the word to actually mean.

Bannasidhe · 07-08-2013 01:59PM

mickrock wrote: »

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.

LULZ.

Sarky · 07-08-2013 02:13PM

Poor Mickrock.

kylith · 07-08-2013 02:14PM

mickrock wrote: »

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.

So since you reject NASA's findings, and I presume you're rejecting the Miller-Urey experiment too, would you care to present your evidence for your alternative?

Bannasidhe · 07-08-2013 04:04PM

kylith wrote: »

So since you reject NASA's findings, and I presume you're rejecting the Miller-Urey experiment too, would you care to present your evidence for your alternative?

Shure what do NASA know like.

kylith · 07-08-2013 04:18PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Shure what do NASA know like.

I know! Sure after being at the head of their field for years they think they know it all.

robindch · 07-08-2013 05:02PM

kylith wrote: »

Sure after being at the head of their field for years they think they know it all.

Head of their field? Sure doesn't everybody know that the moon landings were faked? The Soviets were in on it too!

kylith · 07-08-2013 06:32PM

robindch wrote: »

Head of their field? Sure doesn't everybody know that the moon landings were faked? The Soviets were in on it too!

Oh yeah, how could I forget they were such good friends with the Americans in 1969?

wretcheddomain · 07-08-2013 07:44PM

kylith wrote: »

So since you reject NASA's findings, and I presume you're rejecting the Miller-Urey experiment too, would you care to present your evidence for your alternative?

Unfortunately it gets much worse for the disagreeing poster above.

Recent versions of the experiment have produced even more organic molecules than Miller managed to achieve in 1952.

Sorry to put the final nail in your coffin Mick but someone had to do it.

Sarky · 07-08-2013 08:45PM

Won't stop him banging on the lid.

I've lost count of the number of times I've openly begged him to read up on the subjects of microbiology and evolution, so that he might stop posting nonsense, but look how that's worked out

Turtwig · 07-08-2013 08:53PM

Everybody needs to have faith. For example, most people on this forum follow the assumption that beliefs require evidence. There's really no reason to assume this. Other than it's pragmatic applications. But, that's an another assumption. Just because something provides seemingly pragmatic results doesn't mean it's providing actual knowledge. We just assume it does.

The thing is the 'faith' I mentioned above isn't religious faith. Religious faith is so much more than just trust and assumption. It's active devotion. You worship and pray everyday. You hope that you can change the will of the cosmos. Influence your own fate as it were. Religious types love to conflate the two. "You have faith in your partner". The difference between faith in science and faith in religion is that science is consistently looking to test and doubt it's own claims. That's how the process works. Religions on the other hand aren't proactively seeking to test their own claims. Rather they just expect you to follow and accept them without question.

Sarky · 07-08-2013 09:29PM

Jernal wrote: »

Everybody needs to have faith. For example, most people on this forum follow the assumption that beliefs require evidence. There's really no reason to assume this.

Beliefs do require evidence in order to be taken seriously. A belief without is just, well, pointless. Without evidence, 2,000 or more years of faith ends up on a par with any old sh*t I can make up on the spot. That's one of the points of Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Brian Shanahan · 08-08-2013 12:29AM

kylith wrote: »

I know! Sure after being at the head of their field for years they think they know it all.

They probably just trained Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins solely with the following speech:
"Sure, just press the big shiny red button here, and the wishes of thousands of children will make the unicorns who'll magically transport ye to the moon appear, so that ye can make yere appointment with Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha for tea and scones at Ozmodiar's new café up there in the moon man's left eye."

mickrock · 08-08-2013 12:37AM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Recent versions of the experiment have produced even more organic molecules than Miller managed to achieve in 1952.

How very underwhelming.

There's probably as much chance of detecting Invisible Pink Unicorns as showing how abiogenesis supposedly happened.

Sarky · 08-08-2013 12:39AM

Even when people show you blindingly obvious evidence, you dismiss it without so much as glancing at it, let along understanding. It's very sad to see.

mickrock · 08-08-2013 12:57AM

Sarky wrote: »

Even when people show you blindingly obvious evidence, you dismiss it without so much as glancing at it, let along understanding. It's very sad to see.

It makes me so sad that you have such blind faith in abiogenesis. I'm starting to well up.

I'm thinking of you there surrounded by all your bacterial and viral chums.

Sarky · 08-08-2013 01:15AM

You must have missed half this thread if you think anyone here has blind faith in abiogenesis. Have you put a bunch of people on ignore? I mean, the only other reasonable explanation is that you're just not looking at any links people use to show you why you're wrong, maybe just banging the same old drum in the hopes that you'll annoy someone. And that would be a really stupid thing to do, as it'd make you look really, really silly.

mickrock · 08-08-2013 01:24AM

Sarky wrote: »

You must have missed half this thread if you think anyone here has blind faith in abiogenesis.

Ok, none of you has blind faith in abiogenesis.

I'm not surprised given the lack of evidence for it and the lack of progress being made in the field.

Sarky · 08-08-2013 01:33AM

Again, it looks like you've missed half of the thread, or didn't understand the parts that showed you that you're wrong. If it was a lack of understanding, you've shown no interest in becoming less wrong. That's tragic.

Pherekydes · 08-08-2013 10:38AM

Sarky wrote: »

Again, it looks like you've missed half of the thread, or didn't understand the parts that showed you that you're wrong. If it was a lack of understanding, you've shown no interest in becoming less wrong. That's tragic.

Nope. It's the very definition of ignorance.

Bannasidhe · 08-08-2013 11:29AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Nope. It's the very definition of ignorance.

I term it 'willfully ignorant'.

recedite · 08-08-2013 03:48PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

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...... 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

I was intrigued by that definition of what faith is not ( it seems a good definition of what faith is)
So I read further to clarify what it actually is;

Faith, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, is the virtue "by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural light," allowing the intellect to assent "firmly to the supernatural truths of Revelation."

Now georgyieporgy, do you really believe this?
That a heavenly light shines down on you, turbo-charging your intellect beyond that of the rest of us, which then causes you to submit to the realisation that no rational evidence is required for this belief in the supernatural?

georgieporgy · 08-08-2013 06:05PM

recedite wrote: »

I was intrigued by that definition of what faith is not ( it seems a good definition of what faith is)
So I read further to clarify what it actually is;
Now georgyieporgy, do you really believe this?
That a heavenly light shines down on you, turbo-charging your intellect beyond that of the rest of us, which then causes you to submit to the realisation that no rational evidence is required for this belief in the supernatural?

I don't think you quite grasped the main trust of the article. I wouldn't have used your description to explain it.
Further on in the same article you will no doubt have noted what happens when one loses the Faith that he once had
Losing Faith:

Because faith is a supernatural gift of God, and because man has free will, we can freely reject faith. When we openly revolt against God through our sin, God can withdraw the gift of faith. He will not necessarily do so, of course; but should He do so, the loss of faith can be devastating, because truths that were once grasped through the aid of this theological virtue may now become unfathomable to the unaided intellect. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith"—even more so than those who never were blessed with the gift of faith in the first place.

The whole point of my posting in this thread is to answer directly the OP's question. Now you know what believers mean when they speak of Faith, whereas the popular misunderstanding of the term (as described above) only confuses people and has no bearing on reality.

Sarky · 08-08-2013 06:08PM

The whole point was that you're using a definition of faith that doesn't bear any resemblance to what faith actually is.

georgieporgy · 08-08-2013 06:25PM

recedite · 08-08-2013 08:19PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

I don't think you quite grasped the main trust of the article. I wouldn't have used your description to explain it.
Further on in the same article you will no doubt have noted .....

Heh heh, I understood it perfectly, that's the problem. I'm not one of those people who reads a piece of nonsense wrapped up in flowery language and then thinks it must be some awesome truth.
I think my "description" is a fair rephrasing of the original quote.
Sadly I didn't get too much further in the article.

Sandals and Shorts · 10-08-2013 12:21PM

You could always try repeatedly asking "God, if you are there, grant me faith"

But could your ego's stand it ? Probably not.

kylith · 10-08-2013 12:36PM

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

You could always try repeatedly asking "God, if you are there, grant me faith"

But could your ego's stand it ? Probably not.

Tried it. Doesn't work.

Bannasidhe · 10-08-2013 12:37PM

kylith wrote: »

Tried it. Doesn't work.

I won't bother trying so - no point in repeating a failed experiment.

gctest50 · 10-08-2013 12:41PM

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

You could always try repeatedly asking "God, if yo............

Why repeatedly ?

Why do religious believers need 'faith'?

Comments