But then you cease to be.
Your point?
I did not deny that.
Your meaning is ultimately futile.
Doesnât matter. It still gives me meaning while I am alive. Do you not enjoy roller coasters because you have to get off after a few minutes? Do you refuse to enjoy a movie because it ends after a couple of hours?
And you would consider this empirical evidence of something? I have seen some pretty impressive magic shows. How about you?
And when you add irrelevant conditions to a definition of a word, it also loses nearly all of its meaning, such as when people used to say that intelligence only applies to men or that good deeds only applies to Christians.
Faith is when you accept something as correct without proof or objective evidence. It applies to every rational argument when you start with premises in order to draw conclusions. Saying it only applies to religion makes it meaningless for we might as well just say âreligious beliefâ and throw the word âfaithâ in the bin as adding nothing.
The fact of the matter is that scientists are the greatest example of faith in modern times for by faithfully following the methods of science and assuming there are no demons out there arranging the evidence to deceive them, they have changed the world.
What you can say is that this is reasonable faith and one that should be distinguished from blind faith which ignores the objective evidence. But this is something religion can and should aspire to, following the example of science. What you can also say is the that the methods of science doesnât employ faith but uses written procedures which give the same result no matter what you believe. This is gives it a measure of objectivity that cannot be found in religion and thus has a superior epistemological status. It is only reasonable that religion correct its claims to agree with these results just as science does.
But this doesnât change the fact that that the methods of science are not themselves a result of the methods of science and there is no objective evidence to demonstrate that there are no demons out there arranging the evidence to deceive us. But to be sure this is a reasonable premise to accept, just as it is reasonable to accept that the universe is real and was not created this morning with all our memories as they are.
Although Iâm only sitting on the sidelines with popcorn and donât want to distract from the conversation. I did want to pop my head in and say thank you to @T_aquaticus, @MarkD, @mitchellmckain, @Dale, and anyone else whose contributed to this thoroughly interesting and educational thread.
Now back to my popcorn⌠
5 Likes
With some very simple controls, I would be pretty convincing to me.
You are saying that there is only faith, and evidence does not exist. For evidence to exist we would need to agree that reality is real and rational, and you label those as being based on faith.
Once again, you are saying that everything is faith. That makes no sense to me. If I believe in leprechauns without any evidence of their existence, that is faith. If I donât believe in leprechauns because there is a lack of evidence, that is faith as well.
What wouldnât be faith?
Just as yours may turn out to be ultimately fictional. Though I wouldnât say it was futile or valueless on that account.* You may need to work on your charity game. I hear it can do wonders for ones life-satisfaction. 
*Actually it goes deeper than what I would say, it is what I actually think. I believe the form your beliefs take can absolutely provide you with genuine meaning in your life even if not literally true.
1 Like
There is the likelihood of a painful crash when it is over. Iâd rather have you as a friend for eternity.
1 Like
I am as sure of my Father in heaven as I ever was in my biological father.
It does. Your hearing is correct â you should try it yourself. My life-satisfaction is wonderful, and my life is full of wonders. 
Oh, I guess that was technically redundant.
So what? People are convinced by all sorts of things. What do you imagine that proves? What you are talking about is personal experience. So some people experience God and believe in God without any doubt whatsoever. Others experience ghosts. Still others experience alien abductions. Why in the world is YOUR personal experience any better than another personâs?
You are saying that there is a gold brick on the end of your nose. See. I can make up total trash too. If you believe in evidence where is your evidence that I said any such thing. Your inability to tell the difference between what I said and this is very disappointing.
There is not only faith. There is also reason and there is also evidence. There is in fact two kinds of evidence. There is the objective evidence of science based on written procedures anyone can follow to get the same result no matter what they believe. And there is the subjective evidence of personal experiences of all sorts.
Anything accepted on faith is accepted on faith whether it is religious belief or not.
Incorrect. Not everything is faith. I do say however that all knowledge ultimately rests on faith. But no that doesnât mean everything is faith no more than the fact that everything is made of the elementary particles of physics means that everything is physics. Reason is not faith. The fact that you cannot use reason without also employing faith in some starting premises doesnât change this. Nor does the fact that science rests on faith change the fact that the conclusions of science have an objectivity which cannot be found in religion.
You know, it is fact discovered by the science of psychology that the process of perception which turns sensory data into conclusions about the world does not happen independent of beliefs. So I think you need to reassess your rather blind faith in distinctions you are making between subjective experience and objective knowledge.
Apparently it is just because you just havenât seen any leprechauns, but when you do then you will expect everyone to accept this as a scientific fact. But this is unreasonable, because your personal experiences are not proof or scientific evidence.
Lots of things. Besides reason, there are the findings in math and science. Just because science requires a little faith and mathematical proofs require accepting various premises on faith doesnât mean everything is faith. But yes it does mean that all knowledge ultimately rests on faith and thus people who claim knowledge without any use of faith whatsoever are simply delusional.
But is there any proof of this? No there is not. None. So why do we accept this? Why is it reasonable? It is because it is more meaningful to live your life in agreement with your memories and experiences rather than ignoring them even if they never happened.
I would love that as well, but we donât always get what we want. (cue Rolling Stones ).
3 Likes
Got to say Iâll never understand this fixation with certainty. I mean itâs nice when available but in this area I canât begin to imagine what it would be like to be certain. Iâm not riddled with doubt but I donât like to forget where it is Iâm making do with less than 100%.
Your confidence has been noted but I donât think Iâm the only one who doesnât envy you for it - on either side of the belief divide.
2 Likes
Certainty is a delusion.
The question of what is reasonable is more fruitful.
1 Like
Itâs not. I am simply telling you what would convince me, just as you did.
I guess I donât see the same distinctions you do, and I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for the clarification, it was helpful.
What distinctions between subjective and objective knowledge do you think I am making, and why?
I wouldnât expect anyone else to accept it without repeatable empirical observations, and review by others. I would also expect other people to critically evaluate my findings before accepting them.
I tend to use a more colloquial definition for âfaithâ, not some uber-technical one. That is probably why we are finding disagreement.
2 Likes
Just so those eating popcorn know⌠I gave that reply a thumbs up. So the show is pretty much over.
It was a shot in the dark trying to understand what has been made more clear in this last post.
1 Like
Having quoted me as saying âYou may need to work on your charity game. I hear it can do wonders for ones life-satisfaction.â You said:
For what itâs worth, I wasnât doubting your satisfaction with your beliefs and your life. The charity I was speaking of had to do with the effort you make to empathize with perspectives which are not your own. You can go on assuming that only those plugged into Christianity can have any meaning or satisfaction in their lives, or you could actually undertake to determine whether that is true. It doesnât have any impact on me -I mean, Iâm not suggesting you do it so I can enjoy a better place in your esteem- but wouldnât it be good to have as much truth as possible in your life? Even if you already have the one most important mega truth of them all you still need to put in some human effort to see if any of your other assumptions are any good, assuming you donât actually have God on speed dial for that sort of thing. The charity you seem to be lacking is that required to understand others in the best light possible. Do you actually need to believe that everyone who thinks differently than you is some sort of humanity deprived wreck? If so, what exactly does that do for you?
1 Like
You are unjustified in those extrapolations from what I said. I never said that a person cannot feel fulfilled (a lot donât!) and infer a meaning to their life (not everyone does!). If their lives are going relatively well and they are successful in their careers and they are healthy and comfortable, sure, but itâs dangerous. (The empty lives of many of the rich and famous are not enviable).
This isnât the whole story, but itâs relevant: