You are using different meanings of “value” interchangeably. Im sorry but it makes it difficult to find a spot to engage with.

We need to narrow down our discussion if we want it to be more fruitful: Do you wish to discuss faith in the context of believing whether a historical event occurred or reliability of a news story? These are separate and I don't want our discussion to get too convoluted. — Moses

I didnt want to not respond to your opening paragraph here, but it seems like you move on from it anyway…

In any case when it comes to history it's about what we consider good reasons/evidence to accept that an event happened. In other words whether you place faith in your sources. — Moses

I disagree that reasons and evidence that an event happened are based on “faith” in your sources. Its a figure of speech to say you have faith in a source, but that way of using the word “faith” is not the same as having faith in the religious sense of the word.

I was talking about utility in the realm of praxeology, i.e. human action - it allows us to basically cut off our thinking at a certain point and invites action. I agree that utility has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false, nor should faith be a reason. I think another benefit to faith, if used correctly, is that it acknowledges our own very limited knowledge of this world. — Moses

Ok, so what is faith in the religious sense if its not a reason? Why when people are asked why they belief in god they say “faith”? I do not understand how faith isnt being offered as a reason in that common example.

I disagree that reasons and evidence that an event happened are based on “faith” in your sources. Its a figure of speech to say you have faith in a source, but that way of using the word “faith” is not the same as having faith in the religious sense of the word. — DingoJones

You should question your sources because sources are human and humans are not unquestionable. For instance, lets take Sennacherib's assassination purportedly by his own sons in 681 BCE. We come to know this because of royal inscriptions and this is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (I guess word got around). Is it insane to think that a royal assassination may have been pinned on someone else? Wouldn't be the first time.

But no, generally we trust in these stone inscriptions written by his advisors and presume that this is honest. We also presume that we interpret correctly despite language changing.

I agree that there is a distinction between religious faith and e.g. historical faith although a common thread is that both involve a "jump."

Ok, so what is faith in the religious sense if its not a reason? Why when people are asked why they belief in god they say “faith”? I do not understand how faith isnt being offered as a reason in that common example. — DingoJones

Faith is not a reason. It is a jump. I do not know that God exists, but I believe that he does. I may be wrong.

A bit of analysis won't go astray. Forgetting what we might call them, there are a range of levels of belief we might identify. It is also worth flipping the usual emphasis on justification, so that we look at what things it is reasonable to doubt. Doing this gives an interesting perspective.

Belief is simply holding some statement to be true.

Within that, we might differentiate the beliefs we hold to be true in virtue of their situation in our language games. So that the bishop always stays on the same coloured squares in chess is a consequence of the rules of chess, and hence cannot be doubted without throwing doubt on those rules.

Similarly, beliefs in certain other language structures cannot be doubted without throwing doubt on the fundaments of language use. Things like that 1+1=2, or that bachelors are unmarried males. Doubting these leads to inconsistency or incoherence.

There are other things that if doubted lead to inconsistency or incoherence, but not so much because of the structure of language as of our being embedded in the world. That you are now reading this post, for example. It is difficult to see how that might be doubted without also bringing into doubt fundamental aspects of the way the world is.

There are a range of things that we take as granted. That the floor will not give way under your feet when you stand up, that your fingers will obey your commands, and so on. We can on occasions be wrong about such things, but we are so confident in them that we take them as granted.

Doubting the things listed so far is a philosophical conceit. Something we do not do unless perhaps we are studying Descartes. Generally speaking we can reasonably be certain of the things mentioned so far.

Then there are things for which we might requirer evidence. the ubiquitous examples are what we call scientific facts, but there are far more commonplace instances. A common error, already seen in this thread, is for folk to think that all statements are of this type, usually with the excuse of being "scientific" or "rational", and a demand that others "justify" their beliefs. This is a error that can be cured by considering the wider number of examples mentioned in this post.

Such things are to be subject to doubt unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Then there are things which seem so extraordinary that common evidence is insufficient for us to believe in them. These are things that requirer a not just a repositioning of our beliefs but a great upheaval. Samples might included ghosts being accepted as evidence of life after death, or UFO reports being taken as evidence of extraterrestrial interest in the anuses of country hicks. There are things it is unreasonable not to doubt.

And in consideration of the OP, there are things which folk take as true regardless of the evidence involved. These are things that folk take to be certain even if there is evidence to the contrary, and even if that evidence is overwhelming. Conspiracy theorists provide ample examples. You've doubtless seen how folk will reinterpret or excuse evidence against Trump, or against a flat Earth, and so on.

Other examples are riff in religious communities. Transubstantiation is a clear example. Despite the direct evidence that the wine and bread remain unchanged, they are taken by the believer to have been altered in their very substance. No evidence is relevant here, but rather one must believe even if the all else is contrary to that belief. this is elevated to the highest virtue.

But this last leaves rationality behind.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. ~F.N.

I want to explore the meaning of faith and how it relates to optimism and hope. — Tate

I have no doubt that a persistent 'illusion of knowledge' (faith) projects an 'illusion of control' (optimism, hope) – in other words, the fetish of suspended disbelief exacerbates self-serving make believe.

I have no doubt that a persistent 'illusion of knowledge' (faith) projects an 'illusion of control' (optimism, hope) – in other words, the fetish of suspended disbelief exacerbates self-serving make believe. — 180 Proof

I know what being deeply entrenched in pessimism means, so there's no shock value here (not that you meant that). I don't ail so as to need hope as a salve. For all practical purposes, I'm the rich man who, like Nietzsche, can revile pity because it only sustains the superfluous.

Just for a second, stop trying to teach and try something on. It starts with just letting go of pessimism for a second and realizing that you don't know. What comes into view are possibilities. Some of the possibilities for our species rock. Do you know what I mean?

While the subject of faith is pretty vast and be approached in various ways, an elementary observation is one doesn't need faith when it comes to facts or 'what is'. — skyblack

In a way, you do. When Kierkegaard talks about having faith in your own acceptableness, think about the emotions that keep you from embracing that. Emotions are usually the thing that clouds your vision. An act of faith can involve putting those emotions to the side.

In cults people often radiate happiness as a consequence of 'knowing' that god's will is being fulfilled and that they are part of a system of transcendent meaning that will deliver a great destiny and reward. The world they know is exactly as it is meant to be, all has been provided for. I suppose my overarching point is that perhaps not all optimism is worth having. — Tom Storm

Ha. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard says Abraham had the hope that takes the form of madness.

Sometimes maybe madness is needed.

Carry on.

You should question your sources because sources are human and humans are not unquestionable. For instance, lets take Sennacherib's assassination purportedly by his own sons in 681 BCE. We come to know this because of royal inscriptions and this is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (I guess word got around). Is it insane to think that a royal assassination may have been pinned on someone else? Wouldn't be the first time. — Moses

I can agree with that, Im a historical skeptic, further back the more skeptical I am. I am less skeptical when there is corroborated evidence to reinforce a historical fact. For example, the evidence that pyramids were built long ago is so strong ( “hey look, a pyramid!”) that it is foolish to think otherwise.
However, this level of evidence is still much much stronger than any case based on faith alone.

Faith is not a reason. It is a jump. I do not know that God exists, but I believe that he does. I may be wrong. — Moses

I don't think there is a real distinction between faith being a reason and a jump.
But ok, so your answer to “why do you believe in god?” Is NOT faith? What is it then?

Ha. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard says Abraham had the hope that takes the form of madness.

Sometimes maybe madness is needed. — Tate

Or madness takes a form of hope. I think the god depicted in that particular story is a deity who abuses its power.

Or madness takes a form of hope. I think the god depicted in that particular story is a deity who abuses its power. — Tom Storm

Have you read Fear and Trembling?

Have you read Fear and Trembling? — Tate

No. I was referring to my take on the Abraham/Isaac story, not Kierkegaard's - fascinating though his probably is.

I don't think there is a real distinction between faith being a reason and a jump.
But ok, so your answer to “why do you believe in god?” Is NOT faith? What is it then? — DingoJones

Well, it's faith + my reading and understanding of the bible. I've read the greeks. I've read other ancient literature. I can usually deduce where the writers get certain ideas, like when early Greek writers in antiquity talk about the four elements being water, earth, air, and fire (or something along those lines).... you get where they got that understanding. The greeks are good in some areas; interesting political insights, social insights, insights into the nature of man.

But the bible has moral wisdom that I cannot pinpoint the source of. I've read a lot of moral lit. I've read a lot of ancient lit. The bible is radical in that it preaches basically the opposite message of a lot of ancient literature and I just have no idea where these ideas came from. the bible humbles kings and boosts the oppressed. I don't know why anyone in antiquity would choose to boost the poor and diseased when it's more natural and widespread to think of them as low. the hebrew bible affirms the dignity of the disabled (exodus 4:10) in a way that virtually no one else does. disability studies are a major area for me and on this topic the bible gets an A+; the wisdom is beyond the current day. I could write more about this but the short answer is that if the book if fiction then it is the greatest work of fiction ever written and I have no idea where they came across this type of wisdom or ideas in the brutal environment that was antiquity. I know we can always pull sword quotes but look at what this book gets right and don't take it for granted. today we have the luxury of taking them for granted, but it is a luxury. I believe in god because I believe in the wisdom of the book.

The bible is radical in that it preaches basically the opposite message of a lot of ancient literature and I just have no idea where these ideas came from. the bible humbles kings and boosts the oppressed. I don't know why anyone in antiquity would choose to boost the poor and diseased when it's more natural and widespread to think of them as low. the hebrew bible affirms the dignity of the disabled (exodus 4:10) in a way that virtually no one else does. — Moses

Have you read any of what Nietzsche proposes concerning this ‘slave’ morality?

In cults people often radiate happiness as a consequence of 'knowing' that god's will is being fulfilled and that they are part of a system of transcendent meaning that will deliver a great destiny and reward. The world they know is exactly as it is meant to be, all has been provided for. I suppose my overarching point is that perhaps not all optimism is worth having. — Tom Storm

A central characteristic of the psychology of cults is an intense need for a sense of belonging. This need finds its satisfaction in a delicately constructed and very vulnerable faith, so the happiness radiated by cult members comes at a great cost. It requires enormous energy keeping at bay all forces that might risk bursting the bubble of faith so tenuously held together by lock-step thinking. This means making the outside world the enemy. I got to know the members of three cults, the Moonies , Yogananda , and Kerista, based in Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco, and saw first hand how this need manifested itself.

:up:

Do you know what I mean? — Tate

My post didn't express "pessimism".

Well, it's faith + my reading and understanding of the bible. — Moses

Well it can’t be faith + your reading…it would have to be just your reading then right? Cuz faith isnt a reason…?

But the bible has moral wisdom that I cannot pinpoint the source of. — Moses

That is an argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because
You cannot pinpoint the source doesnt mean you get to insert the one you want. All that can be concluded from your lack of pinpointing is that you do not know. The source of that moral wisdom could be anything, why is the answer god? I dont think it makes sense to answer faith so what factor does faith actually play for you?

Consider a human neonate, if your memory does not reach to your experience of the state. No reading of labels is possible. One is in a state of helpless dependence on whoever cares, or doesn't care for one. One does not believe or disbelieve because one does not have the language to form a proposition, but one trusts, one has faith that one's cry will be heard, and for some it is not heard though they had faith.

Children trust their parents, until they learn better. Or with luck, they do not learn much better because their parents are trustworthy.

Some people have faith in democracy or justice, or the creative potential of humanity. But to have faith in justice is by no means to believe that justice prevails. Indeed if justice did invariably prevail one would not talk about having faith or belief, but of knowing from experience. Rather, this faith is manifested in action, as the attempt to make this day this affair, this act, a just one. One does not steal because it would be unjust, and thus one is faithful to justice.

One is faithful to the principles of science if one reports honestly and fully the results of an experiment and does not cook the statistics or pretend to have taken precautions one has not taken. A faithless scientist is an abomination and not to be trusted.

The more one looks at the way the language is used, the more one sees that faith has to do with an ethical life, and the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way the world works.

All evidence is suspect (re Cartesian deus deceptor).

Have you read any of what Nietzsche proposes concerning this ‘slave’ morality? — Joshs

I have but it's been around a decade. I remember the argument made quite an impression on me. I did a quick bit of research into Nietzsche's argument but after reading the OT I just don't buy his interpretation.

The OT is fundamentally life affirming, not self-abnegating. It encourages strength, not weakness, but there is no single-minded devotion to strength (that is wicked.) The OT tells us to be fruitful and multiply, and the book details the feats of great warriors and lionizes military strength at times. One gains strength through God. God will reward and strengthen those who follow his dictates. The OT encourages one to boost the poor, but being poor and weak is not a virtue, on the contrary, weakness is often a result of disobeying God according to the OT. Be humble, not weak.

The more one looks at the way the language is used, the more one sees that faith has to do with an ethical life, and the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way the world works. — unenlightened

yes yes yes

The more one looks at the way the language is used, the more one sees that faith has to do with an ethical life, and the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way the world works. — unenlightened

If we put this a bit differently and say that the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way others live, we might then have to deal with what separates me from we , or binds us all together. This is of course a very sticky wicket. The old fashioned ethical approach begins with such concepts as free will and the autonomous individual, and the assumption that the me and the we are separated by a clear divide such that it is necessary to start from the way I live rather than the way we live. In its most extreme form, Objectivism , the ‘we’ can go to hell if it stands in the way of the me. Utilitarianism tries to strike a balance between me and we.

More recent approaches , like Wittgensteinianism, phenomenology and postmodernism, assert that the we is already built into the me. From this vantage, evidence concerning how I live my life cannot be separated from evidence concerning how we live our lives. Self-interest is already an investment in the interests of others. Put differently, without an intimate understanding of the way the world of other people works, I will fail to live an ethical life, since that ethics depends on my insightful relations with others rather than empty rules.

That is an argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because
You cannot pinpoint the source doesnt mean you get to insert the one you want. All that can be concluded from your lack of pinpointing is that you do not know. The source of that moral wisdom could be anything, why is the answer god? I dont think it makes sense to answer faith so what factor does faith actually play for you? — DingoJones

I don't know, maybe God is an alien. Who the hell knows. I'm just throwing in with it. That's what I mean by faith. Some theists claim their belief in God is a pure product of rationality but I am not one of those. I'm not saying that my claims/reasons are purely rational hence I use faith. I know they don't make the cut in a philosophy forum and I believe the idea that the Judeo-Christian God can be reached rationally is folly. God transcends human rationality/reason by his very nature. All I know is that the book is insanely wise - wiser than Mill, Hume, Descartes, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, you name it.

Fair enough I suppose.
So how do you reckon the parts of the bible that are awful with the parts with this wisdom you claim it has?

We'd have to go case by case since there's so many. It's a brutal book but it's also hilarious at times. Some of the prophets liken God to a cuckold at times when Israel strays.

.

All evidence is suspect (re Cartesian deus deceptor). — Agent Smith

And your own "suspect" for this claim ... :roll:

faith has to do with an ethical life, and the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way the world works. — unenlightened

Explain how "faith healing" in lieu of modern medical attention for a patient in extremis is "ethical"? :mask:

I just meaning general. Whatever wisdom the book provides it also Condones slavery and murder.:.are you just ignoring those parts or…?