In other words, faith is to believe, something without proof. — TheMadFool

Let's assume that that is an accurate characterization of faith (I'm not saying it is). Is it limited to "religion"?

Not everyone who lived in and about Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' crucifixion thought he had risen from the dead. I doubt if very many people thought Mohammed rode a horse to heaven at the time. we don't know if Moses even existed. Anyway, Moses didn't purport to part the sea, God parted the waters and drowned the Egyptians.

I think rational people can believe in God. God, and religion, serves and has served many useful functions.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1

No religion can be transparent, so things not seen have always needed to be taken on faith. Religion is the vessel into which many of our hopes are placed, without knowing whether hope will be fulfilled.

Is it limited to "religion"? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, theMunchhausen Trilemma is inescapable and we must begin somewhere. Let's take the alleged opposite of religion - science. It begins from observations that are repeated, by as many people and instruments as possible, so that we can say, beyond reasonable doubt, that a particular observation is a truth.

All things between religion and science submit to some variation of the Munchhausen Trilemma.

However, my point is that religion is based on evidence and the role of faith doesn't exceed that in other spheres of human knowledge.

My point is that the role of faith in religion is at the same level as in other human knowledge e.g. science.

My point is that the role of faith in religion is at the same level as in other human knowledge e.g. science. — TheMadFool

I don't think that is true. So, you think everything is as opaque as religion is?

When Apple develops a new product, they neither hope nor have faith that it will do well. They have run the numbers, sliced and diced the market, tested, tested, tested, researched, started over again -- yada yada yada -- to make sure that what they offer will sell. That's why Apple has $246 billion dollars of cash on hand.

Drug companies may hope that their new blockbuster drug will make it through testing -- there are no guarantees what works on a rat will work on a man, but they aren't running on faith, hope, and charity -- especially not charity.

If religion has validity, it doesn't have to be the same as everything else.

However, my point is that religion is based on evidence and the role of faith doesn't exceed that in other spheres of human knowledge. — TheMadFool

What is your reaction to the statement "There is no evidence for the existence of God"?

If religion is all about faith then why did so-called prophets perform miracles? Isn't the notion of evidence tied inseparably to miraculous events?

I agree the rigor of rationality was of poor quality in the past and don't meet modern standards. However, the point is, evidence was provided and the concept of faith collapses. It doesn't make sense to provide evidence and then appeal to faith.

What is your reaction to the statement "There is no evidence for the existence of God"? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Miracles were provided as evidence of the divine. Faith then becomes redundant.

Faith is nothing more than a strongly held belief. We all have beliefs and many are strongly held. Best for over not to get too wedded to any belief. Allow for mobility so that one can become a skillful navigator in life.

If religion is all about faith then why did so-called prophets perform miracles? — TheMadFool

Jesus didn't heal the sick, or raise the dead as evidence -- he did so as a sign that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. He didn't do anything to prove to people he was the Son of God.

I agree the rigor of rationality was of poor quality in the past and don't meet modern standards. However, the point is, evidence was provided and the concept of faith collapses. It doesn't make sense to provide evidence and then appeal to faith. — TheMadFool

I don't know what the rigor of rationality was thousands of years ago. Certainly, some people were extremely discerning and some people were credulous. I do not know whether we can really understand the ancient mind. (Brains haven't changed; cultures have changed.)

Why did the people believe Jesus was the son of God? This is a valid question and the answer is the miracles he performed.

Do you require certainty of success before you'll attempt something? You probably won't get around to much if that's the case. I think that we ought to have faith in ourselves, and faith in others -- because most of the things we attempt, there is no guarantee of success, or positive outcome. There is just the hope of it.

Personally, if success is a certainty, then that sounds pretty boring to me.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have faith.

But...

Religion being only about faith is a lie. There's a great deal of evidence provided in miracles and they are, like it or not, very strong evidence for the supernatural. So, we shouldn't be saying religion is about faith as if it rests entirely on that attitude alone.

Why did the people believe Jesus was the son of God? This is a valid question and the answer is the miracles he performed. — TheMadFool

Jesus performed a number of miracles. That's one piece of evidence. Then there was Jesus himself--who was to some very compelling evidence--just his personhood--prior to his death. I wasn't there -- you weren't there. 99.999999% of all those who have believed that Jesus was the son of God were not there. Of the .0000001% who were there, saw Jesus walking around, heard Jesus speak, witnessed the miracles, split a bagel and cream cheese with Jesus--not all were convinced. Then there was the resurrection. Again, not everybody believed it. The intended beneficiaries of Jesus incarnation apparently didn't believe it (something that Paul deals with extensively).

What 99.999999% of believers have is a report of miracles, a report about Jesus, a report about the resurrection. The report we have (the New Testament--the Gospels) is clearly not an objective report about things seen and believed. We are 2000+ years removed from that report.

We 99.999999% need one big piece of faith to get to the evidence. We have to believe that the New Testament account of Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection is reliable evidence. It may be. Then, once we believe that, we have to believe that Jesus demonstrated he was the Son of God. Again, we are 2000+ years removed. We can't experience Jesus in Jerusalem, short of getting into a time machine and going back there.

I'll grant you there is evidence. I have no objection to people taking the NT as evidence. What I object to is the rejection of faith as the critical step.

Is there a religion that relies on evidence to attract, keep, and nourish believers?

Here's an argument against faith:
(1) Anything dangerous is not good.
(2) Anything that is without evidence is dangerous.
(3) Faith is a thing without evidence.
Therefore, (4) faith is not good.

Suppose that you have no evidence that there is no bomb in Iraq. Suppose that you have merely faith in bombless in Iraq. You, then, will be able to go to 'dangerous trip' to Iraq. Evidence is safer than faith.

I'll grant you there is evidence. I have no objection to people taking the NT as evidence. What I object to is the rejection of faith as the critical step.

Is there a religion that relies on evidence to attract, keep, and nourish believers? — Bitter Crank

In my humble opinion, faith doesn't have as big a role, as is claimed, in religion. I do agree that as time passes, witnesses die, accounts get distorted, books lose relevance, etc. Today, 2000 years on, the evidence has deteriotated but, ask anyone today why s/he believes in Jesus and the answer will most likely involve the miracles He allegedly performed.

To believe the evidence needs faith but the belief in Jesus is grounded in reason. Can you see the difference?

To believe the evidence needs faith but the belief in Jesus is grounded in reason. Can you see the difference? — TheMadFool

It depends upon what the belief is.

A very straightforward belief is that Jesus existed as a human 2000 years ago. This belief rests upon what someone has read somewhere. How strongly do you believe in the source? Was the source a Donald Trump kind of source? Or a CNN source? Biases? Probably can't tell. I can hardly figure out what is going on today much less 2000 years ago. Or maybe the belief rests with some feeling of some type. This is a more personal kind of belief.

So historical figures are interesting and the strength of our beliefs run a spectrum and are determined by a whole set of experiences, subject to change as we experience more.

You don't want to try to interpret things as stupidly as possible.

To believe the evidence needs faith but the belief in Jesus is grounded in reason. Can you see the difference? — TheMadFool

Of course I can see the difference. Actually, I'll concede the issue. belief is based on evidence, and the principle evidence that produces religious people is the concrete live evidence displayed by family and community: Other people believing.

Your view on faith can be supported too. Lots of people claim deep faith in God, but would not for a minute consider healing by faith as opposed to healing by science.

I would and did. Doctors themselves will tell you that it's up to the person more than anything if they survive traumatic injury, they have to fight to stay alive. It's up to patients whether or not therapy will work, the most important step being reaching out, admitting that they have a problem, and trying to find a solution.

It isn't really an opposition. Hiding in a cave from a tornado is no different than seeking medical help for cancer in my view. One of Satan's temptations was for Jesus to test his faith, by doing something moronic like jumping off of a cliff...

There's also that great joke about the guy on the top of his roof after a flood, and he prays for God to save him, so a boat shows up, but he waves them away because he has faith that God will save him. Then an empty raft that he ignores, and then finally a helicopter... but he rejects them all waiting for God to save him, and then drowns like a moron.

The Gods help those that help themselves, as Aesop put it.

The gist of what I want to say is the obvious contradiction in religion - that it appeals to our faith and at the same time offers miracles as evidence. Or is it that we can compartmentalize parts of religion that requires faith and parts which are evidence-based?

You don't want to try to interpret things as stupidly as possible — Wosret

Well, the contradiction (above) is real. What do you think of it? Am I being stupid or have I made a clever observation?

Actually, I'll concede the issue. — Bitter Crank

Thanks

Well, the contradiction (above) is real. What do you think of it? Am I being stupid or have I made a clever observation? — TheMadFool

I didn't say you were stupid, I said that you were interpreting it as stupidly as possible, which makes you self-aggrandizing, thinking that what you're reading is that stupid.

Is Einstein's thought experiment obviously wrong because trains can't travel the speed of light?

I should point out as well, that conceptualizations bring form to experience, which is why Schizophrenics hallucinate. Because their empathetic systems are damaged, or screwed up in some way. Precepts without concepts are blind.

This is also how mass sightings of aliens ghosts, and sea monsters work, as well as hearing messages in songs played backwards. When something is unclear, or non-obvious (or your conceptualizations are brought into enough doubt) then your precepts become malleable.

Don't underestimate the power that he was in possession of. Don't think for a second that he couldn't have mind fucked everyone, and made them see whatever the fuck he wanted.

The gist of what I want to say is the obvious contradiction in religion - that it appeals to our faith and at the same time offers miracles as evidence. Or is it that we can compartmentalize parts of religion that requires faith and parts which are evidence-based? — TheMadFool

As with all efforts to find Truth, there will be a mixture of evidence and beliefs (faith being a very strongly held belief) and disagreements be between Truths.

Well, if religion is about faith why would you look for and note down in a book miracles? Clearly, they (miracles) were proferred as evidence of the divine.

I'm not concerned about the quality of the evidence, nor does the truth of evidence interest me. All that I want to share is that religion is evidence-based.

And I addressed that, but I'll go even further. Do you start cheering the bully on when it looks like your kid is about to lose? Do you give up the moment the chips are down, and the odds look stacked against you? Isn't that precisely the time to have the most faith, or youll second guess yourself, hesitate, and fail?

You're just repeating stuff about "evidence", and "proof" because you're brainwashed bro... if you think about how you actually live, and the kinds of values that bring success, and the kinds that bring failure, you'll see that expecting evidence and proof and all is fine in some cases, but ridiculously stagnating, and crippling in others.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not saying faith is bad or inferior.

I am not a theologian or a philosopher of religion, but I--and also people who know more about it than me, it is my understanding--see people's personal testimony as a form of evidence.

You know, "I was a homeless drug addict kicked out of the home of the girlfriend I regularly battered. Then I met Jesus and...".

It is my understanding that that is why it is called witnessing--you are giving your own first-hand account of Christ like a person on a courtroom witness stand is giving his/her personal account of events as evidence to be considered.