So - how is faith “neither good nor bad” as you said before?
— Fire Ologist
I'm not going over it again. Good to see you struggling with the conceptualisation, though. Keep going. — Banno

Because, like I said, maybe you can’t.

You’ve been caught in a contradiction.

Religion/religious fervour is the chief source of global harm. — AmadeusD

That is silly. Unless religion/religious fervor is also the chief source of global good.

Get rid of all religion, I guarantee you, harm by humans skyrockets.

Despite how it occurs to most people as they grow up and begin to think for themselves, Atheism is not a new discovery.

Ye who rebuke religion by excluding yourselves from it simply know not what ye do. I wish you knew.

And once the concern is all the things you say that are examples of religion, or how religion makes you immediately conjure up knife wielding schizophrenics in order to draw your pictures, you are really just talking politics, civil law, psychology, social crap. Not religion. Not even ethics.

I, like most of my churchgoing friends, speaking for all of them can tell you, 99 out of 100 of us want all the same basic rights, freedoms and laws and happiness for all people.

You cripple society by judging the religious so harshly. Just silly. Religious people invented “do not judge others”. Religious people invented “love your enemies.” Religion is also a source of hope for mankind. The source I would add, but certainly a source. Period. Historical fact.

Don’t be such a sour puss on those who are trying to love their neighbors as themselves.

I really don’t see evidence that many of you are any good at identifying heinous acts.

You’re not being very observant.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having. That’s what a “theist” actually is 99 times out of 100 - a whole person, mostly like the family down the street who really cares about other people and makes sacrifices for those others.

But I wish we could just finish the conversation about what is faith instead.

Fundamentalists treat articles of faith as if they were empirical, evidence based facts, and that is where the trouble begins. If, instead, intellectual honesty prevailed and the faithful acknowledged that their faith is for them alone, between them and their God, so to speak, then they would not be arrogant enough to commit heinous acts purportedly in the name of God. — Janus

Don’t you see how none of what you just said addresses what I asked?

All of what you just said contradicts “faith is neither good nor bad” because that all sounds bad.

But supose that I have understood all you had to say, and yet still reject theism. — Banno

I’m not asking about theism. Never really brought up God first in this whole thread. I can’t seem to make you believe that I think there are non-theological ways to understand and act on, faith. And we haven’t even started that conversation.

Most of this thread has been theological/psychological and now political target practice with people shooting in different directions, occasionally hitting marks. But often off target. Like you bringing up theism to me here.

I’ve taken some steps to show you I understood what you had to say. I am trying to be clear about what is meant here, not suppose anything between us.

You ask me to “suppose you understand what I say.” No one here wants anyone to suppose what anyone else thinks - I want to hear it from you.

You said “faith is neither good nor bad.”

You said this. And I agree. That’s what I understand. What you said. So I suppose you understand what I said, because we said the same thing.

But if, as we both now agree, faith is neither good nor bad, why is it that everything else you bring up about faith has to do with fathers murdering their children and fools acting without evidence or reason? Or theism? Because that doesn’t sound “neither good nor bad” to me.

So the question is what do you think?

Me supposing you understand me won’t work, because “neither good nor bad” seems to contradict the murder, ignorance and irrationality involved in everything else you say involving faith.

I think we are all having the wrong conversation about faith.



Faith is belief in something particular. It is hard to see faith apart from having faith in. But it can be seen, but it cannot be seen apart from faith in.

If someone merely says “I have faith.” they have not formed a complete thought. No one knows much about the person who simply says that. There must be some context or content before this statement, or some after it, like “I have faith in X.”

Faith can involve belief in the existence of X.
It can be belief in the capabilities of X (whose existence you already assume or know).
You can have faith in another person.
You can have faith that another person knows something you don’t know, or can do something you can’t do, so you act on this faith and let the other person take the wheel, giving all control to the pilot, etc.

But faith is always the particular momentary act of believing in….X particular.

That now said, Banno, you also said it’s not the meaning or even the lack thereof that is most important (or most worrisome is how you put it), instead, it is what folk actually do that matters.

I agree with that.

But does this widen the precise, initial focus?

I do like keeping things action based and with as many empirical, measurable components as possible, as all acts do. So “what folk do” is good to keep close to “what is faith”.

But here, to me, the precise question is changed a bit to “what is a leap (act) of faith?” What does faith do or lead to?

If so, the conversation, to me, has to now involve two acts: 1) the act of believing that is involved in faith (belief in X without reason or evidence for instance) and 2) the act undertaken based on this faith as a springboard. It’s two acts now, so we have more work to do before we can start judging faith based on God and Abraham’s and jihad, and sacrifices and saints, and other particular “acts of faith.”

We are no longer just seeking to answer a question about faith; we are replacing this question with another two questions - faith and acts based on faith.

Right?

Everyone has leapt ahead. To do sketchy psychology, theology and politics.

So - how is faith “neither good nor bad” as you said before?

Or is faith really only weak justification for anything the faithful wants, mostly used in connection with heinous crimes?

I'm not that interested. — Banno

Maybe you are incapable?

I’m just happy I got you to admit faith of itself has no necessary good or bad to it. (Which I’m not sure you really believe.)

this thread is finished. — Banno

I guess we’ll never know.

Even so, it remains that the story is understood by many as advising one to maintain one's faith even if one believes that god is asking for an abominable act. — Banno

Understood by many? Well they are all wrong. But why are we really talking about this?


No offense to @Bitconnectcarlos, but I don’t think Banno will be converted here on TPF.

You seem to have covered that adequately. — Banno

So I covered the positive, beneficial acts of faith?

Can you show me where I did that? I didn’t think you noticed.

I’d rather hear you say something positive about faith yourself.

Because you did say:

faith of itself is neither good nor bad — Banno

Yet from pretty much everything else you said, faith just seems stupid.

But more importantly, I think it ties into a large problem in liberal, particularly Anglo-American culture, were nothing can be taken seriously and nothing can be held sacred.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

If true, why does this matter? Describe the problem to me. I'm not sure I see a lack of seriousness myself, but perhaps what you mean by this is many groups no longer read or follow traditional values. — Tom Storm

I’ll take a stab. The problem is, there are serious things to talk about. Lightness and sarcasm break the tension, but don’t resolve it. It’s not that groups don’t read the classics or follow tradition, it’s that they mock it, and maybe never tried to understand it, which would require they take it seriously.

I don’t think conservatives have any choice but to have a sense of humor. We are roasted really quite well by traditional media, higher education, and Hollywood, really quite soundly. I think Count’s point is conservatives sometimes want to be taken seriously too.

Ok cool.

But, are there any positive aspects to faith to talk about?

we should not entertain or discuss the negative aspects of faith — Banno

Not at all. Are there any other aspects of faith to talk about Banno?

If you don't believe there are no sound inferences then you would not say, "I can't see how there could be." People who can't see how X would be possible do not think X would be possible, and they have reasons why. — Leontiskos

Give a blind guy sight, take him for a walk on water, raise his brother from the dead, and he can still say “yeah, but how did you really do it?”

religious beliefs are only allowed a sort of freedom from condemnation in as much as they accord with liberal norms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And the liberal version of tolerance towards the religious or other disfavored ones, doesn’t seem to involve any actual respect. As long as the religious keep their thoughts and practices to themselves, libs will tolerate them.

a large problem in liberal, particularly Anglo-American culture, [is] nothing can be taken seriously and nothing can be held sacred. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Certainly not in the public square.

You are making me question my own sarcastic sense of humor.

Feeling deeply about anything (thymos), or especially being deeply intellectually invested in an ideal (Logos), as opposed to being properly "pragmatic" (which normally means a focus on safety and epithumia, sensible pleasures) is seen as a sort failing. This is born out of an all-consuming fear of "fanaticism" and "enthusiasm" — Count Timothy von Icarus

To care about anything too deeply is to be vulnerable, potentially a "fanatic," or worse "a sucker." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Another thoughtful and considered analysis, clearly written. Good stuff.

today…Everywhere, at every moment, we are to engage in experiments in living.

It is automatically an idea worth trying, regardless of how many people it affects, if the idea has never been tried before, and it comes from the left.

On TPF, in this context, nothing you can say to me, should be limited in any way. I hope you speak highly of me and agree with everything I say, but if you don’t you should be able to say absolutely anything you want in this context (TPF sets some limits but they are so basic who cares, any normal person can basically say whatever they want around here.)

So, in this context, if you told me to murder my wife, or go running naked through the quad, and I did it, no one could hold you accountable for anything - not conspiracy to brake indecency laws, or for plotting a murder.

But in a crowded theater, dark, congested, maybe hot, and for some reason a little smokey, if someone yells “Fire! Fire! Run!” and people start running, his words can be said to have caused the running. If it turns out the smoke was some burned popcorn, but there was no fire, and someone was trampled to death, the law and courts and the US Constitution could hold the person who yelled “Fire” accountable for causing the actions that followed.

That makes sense to me. The pen is mightier than the sword - but we shouldn’t regulate that: but when the pen IS a sword, directly causing bloodshed, we should regulate that.

It’s about context. You don’t get to say whatever you want to whomever you want any time you want.

But at a town hall meeting in a political discussion, or on a philosophy forum like this, you should be able to say whatever you can possibly imagine saying.

Acts are not the consequences of speech — NOS4A2

Never?

You and your five sprinting friends are at the track at the starting line. Someone says, “On your marks…Get set….”

What act would follow someone yelling “Go!” at that moment? Nothing? Because acts are not the consequences of speech? Or would running and racing be the consequence of that little speech?

faith of itself is neither good nor bad — Banno

Yes, we agree.

I agree with that too. Democracies legislate themselves into paralysis and bitter faction.

And today with the media rooting for sides, faction ing has become profitable both for corporations and for political parties.

But in the end, the best way to a better world has to be by consent of the governed or the factions will just fight for dominance and pick each other apart.

Common sense is always the undercurrent. Always will be. But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible.

True. I just mean from this earth. People will always move towards or revert back to democracy now.

Even if the reversion starts with a prison riot.

If you view gender as the same thing as Sex Assigned At Birth, then sure, the two are the same. — Wolfy48

No, I’m saying if I didn’t have a measuring stick that had nothing to do with how I identify things, I couldn’t take measure of what my assignment at birth meant or what sex meant or male or not-male, what is the same, what is different…

It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first. — Fire Ologist

What is moral now may not be moral in the future — Wolfy48

And that is why today and into the future, we have to protect a society that can continue to make its own laws, to reflect its own changing values.

Democracy and the individual freedoms of self-government, it seems to me, are too obvious to ever really alter. Self-government will always be a facet of the better societies that will ever exist, from now on. And it can only be taken away from societies that have such freedom through bloodshed.

Live free or die. People who understand this mean it.

But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as. — Wolfy48

What I’m saying is, I wouldn’t be able to see the difference between the sex I was born as and the gender I identify as, if “male” and “female” and “man” and “woman” and “gender” had fluid, changeable referents and meanings.

Hey Wolf,
There’s another thread here about this. My thought are here.

And I generally agree with you. Limiting any speech, by law, based on its content (meaning because you don’t like what it says) is the antithesis of a free society.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/988251

But the title of your OP here is a bit different. To protect freedom, should enslaving and oppressive speech be allowed? It’s like asking if we should be able to vote to change our government into a monarchy.

I think we have to say, yes. And rely on the powers of persuasive speech to win the day.

Or we simply are not free and will certainly be abused by the government.

Doesn’t everyone stipulate the following according to the law of non-contradiction:

Male is different than not-Male, or Female.
Female is different than not-Female, or Male.

Same with, Man is different than Woman.

This is the only way we can think and speak about these things.

If the above is confusing to us, we will get nowhere in a discussion about gender and the further complexities of being a person.

If we can designate any particular thing or trait we want as “female” or “feminine” or “woman”, how on earth can we figure out what a trans thing is in distinction from those female things?

If we want to think and talk about these things, we need to first understand and keep clear how Man can never be not-Man or Woman, at the same time in the same manner. Only then can we look at what a person with a penis, pants and a girlfriend is best referred to as, versus what a person with a penis, dress and surgery to add bigger breasts is called, and what is different about these two persons and what is the same about them.

We don’t just get to pick how to use the word “male” or “woman”, like we don’t just get to pick whether we are born with a penis and a tendency to like dating girls or dating men or wearing dresses or pants, etc. That’s not how language works and not how nature works.

I mean, we can reinvent uses of words and make new words to mean identify new distinctions, but then, some things are just impractical and defeat the purpose of speaking, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the things we meant all along the way. And we can reinvent ourselves and decide to chop off body parts and add others, but if we want to use terms to discuss what we are doing the chopped penises have to be “male/man” parts, and chopped mammaries have to be female.

I can’t start my sentence here with “I” and expect you to understand I mean me, and then end this same sentence where “I” now refers to you, or, who the hell is talking to whom here, about whom???

Gender is one of those practical things first. The differences between male and female and man and woman are simple, stark and obvious. The nuances and complexities of social constructions and culture may demand new words, but cannot defeat old meanings and uses, otherwise we are merely turning something simple, stark and obvious into something complex, ironically, all for the sake of disambiguating and clarification.

Right? It’s like a stairway, we may step off the first step, but that step can’t disappear on us or nothing will be supporting the second step we now stand on.

It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first.

A non sequitur. I will happily judge that a faith sufficient to murder a child is not a good faith. If you can't do likewise, that's on you. Your argument is invalid. — Banno

But will you happily judge a faith sufficient to risk one’s life to save another as good?

If so then there is nothing good or bad necessarily involved in acts of faith qua acts of faith.

So your argument’s reliance on child murder is smoke.

You are avoiding.

You didn’t address the more substantive parts.

People take things on faith that could otherwise be supported by sufficient evidence - they just don’t do the math. — Fire Ologist

Therefore “belief based on insufficient evidence” happens everyday.

You admitted that. Doesn’t that mean your connection between faith acts and immoral behavior may just be correlated, but not causal? I think it does.

Acting without sufficient evidence is a good now. You said yourself you do it all of the time, and I’m sure with great success.

I've found we often must act despite not knowing the consequences. — Banno

That’s my point!

You sound like a man of faith now.

(And if you don’t know the consequences, you didn’t have sufficient evidence - same behavior - so you can’t avoid my point that way.)

I know you aren’t saying all acts of faith are bad. But I think you are saying something like, because of their reckless disregard for better, sufficient evidence, any good outcome that follows an act of faith is accidental, and the faith component was merely foolishness. But I simply disagree. — Fire Ologist

Apparently so might you:

I have not said otherwise. I've just pointed out that the opposite is also true, — Banno

So if both are true, we can’t use good acts or bad acts as some kind of measure of the faith those acts were based on.

So there is no reason to pause a decision and not to act just because that decision is based on faith.

And so bringing up heinous acts, or only heinous acts, or good acts or any acts is irrelevant and unhelpful when saying “what is faith.”

I think your whole disparagement of faith, your argument, is toast.

But such leaps of faith need to be mitigated by other considerations. — Banno

Mitigated leaps of faith. You must be a lot of fun at a party.

(Thought that was funny. I’m a nerd.)

Bottom line, I think you are too hard on faith and acting without sufficient evidence. Plenty of good and reasonable outcomes follow many acts of faith.

The basic premise:
Faith involves
1.) believing something despite insufficient evidence,
2.) and acting on said belief anyway.

And then there is 3.) “the point here is to bring out the immoral acts that are sometimes the result of faith unfettered.” -Banno

Believing without evidence is one thing.
Acting on said baseless belief is another thing.
Acting immorally because you believe things without evidence is a third thing (really a sub category of the second thing).

To start, I see your general point - believing something without good evidence is fraught with peril, and then acting on what is already perilous is reckless, and further, we’ve seen horrible atrocities committed based on such perilous recklessness.

But immorality is not always what happens in every act of faith, so there must be something else to “what is faith.” I’d say that, of the trillions of acts done by billions of believers acting on their faiths, the vast majority are not atrocities such that you or anyone must be skeptical of all acts of faith. Looking at the faith healers and terrorist martyrs is just a tiny narrow picture of actions driven by faith.

I mean, based on insufficient evidence, having only faith in God, people said “take me instead” to the Nazi that wanted to kill someone else, given their lives and saved others. People have turned their other cheek where others would seek vengeance. People have ministered to the sick hoping for miracles risking their lives where no one else would go. Faith builds comfort and hope to those mourning a lost loved one everyday. That isn’t as impactful as some terrorist?

I simply don’t see all acts of faith as bad.

I know you aren’t saying all acts of faith are bad. But I think you are saying something like, because of their reckless disregard for better, sufficient evidence, any good outcome that follows an act of faith is accidental, and the faith component was merely foolishness. But I simply disagree. I think many faith driven acts and the good outcomes hoped for that followed would not have happened without precisely that faith.

So my point here is, a decision to act based on faith in something despite insufficient evidence is not per se bad.

Here is a better way to make this same point.

Prong 1 of your premise: “believing something despite sufficient evidence.”

People do this all of the time outside of the context of religion.
People take things on faith that could otherwise be supported by sufficient evidence - they just don’t do the math. That is still the same thing as an act of faith. Such belief still involves faith because the person doesn’t have the evidence and didn’t use reason to form their belief. This is like when you trust someone giving you directions on the side of the road. You don’t know the person, you have no real reason to believe them, and you could get your own, better evidence, but instead, you believe their word and act, possibly driving off a cliff around the next corner.

So the very act of believing something without sufficient evidence needs to be further analyzed to determine its relative value, its practicality, its prevalence in daily decision-making, usefulness and predictability of outcome, etc. - basically there is no necessary connection between whatever reason you might have to forgo sufficient evidence and yet make a decision to believe and act anyway. In the moment, what could otherwise be a sufficiently evidenced decision, is instead more quickly made with insufficient evidence. So maybe you call it following your gut or intuition, and not faith, but either name here, there is a need and prevalence for all of us to act based on insufficient evidence all of the time.

So again we see that acting on insufficient evidence itself is not per se bad.

If all acting based on insufficient evidence is bad, we should probably not listen to what anyone else ever says.

Second point others are trying to make here is this, I never do anything based on insufficient evidence. I don’t follow Zeus, or Pan. I believe the words of a man who said great things, and the people around him who saw him do many impossible things. I have evidence. I get that I can’t hand you the proof of these things and allow us both to retest veracity, but like the person who gives me directions, when those directions make some sense, I believe them despite insufficient evidence.

Basically, you can’t just conclude that because you don’t see the evidence doesn’t mean it is not there. I see it. I base my decisions and actions on what I see.

It is just not an accurate description of my thought process to call my acts of faith essentially always “based on insufficient evidence.” I see that evidence can be weak, but I also see that there are many decisions we make in our day where evidence will be weak, so the faith muscle needs to be exercised to become a good one.

Religious faith is trust in another person based on your evidence of who that person is. Faith is a gift (just like the other way we make decisions, reason, is a gift). Persons are wild cards - and require faith to know, believe and follow (act upon).

How does a person transition from one sex to another, say from male to female, without a prior clear, absolute conception of “male” and “female” they must start from?

How can you feel “My body doesn’t match my sense of self?” without some sort of assumption of what it is supposed to feel like to have any particular body and be any particular self?

There is essentialism, objectivity/biology/psychology, and normativity laced all throughout this modern question of gender. We should admit it.

My only policy issue here would have to do with children - let’s let children avoid this mess as long as possible. Let’s keep them out of wondering about this. Because kids just want to know where we are telling them they can go take a pee. It’s up to us to keep it that simple for them and protect their innocence of these questions. We don’t need to experiment with the psychology of all children for the sake of a few children. That’s irresponsible towards all of them.

But forgoing the policy discussion, I’d love to see if we could disambiguate any thing here on TPF. Gender probably should be an easy one.

We should all be able to admit as an objective fact what a male is and normally does with his body, and what a female is and normally does with hers. I think it is precisely because of what a normal woman looks like, acts like, wears, and has for body parts, that a trans man comes to seek some resolution by transitioning to a woman. He wants to be a she - both being clearly distinct to him.

So protecting a clear definition of male and female and man and woman, protects men, trans men, women and trans women. Without men and women first, you can never have trans men and trans women second; and you can’t have a trans man or trans woman first, because then there would be no discussion or thoughts of transitioning.

We need penises to be penises, vaginas to be vaginas, and bosoms to be bosoms first, for it to be any fun to play with all of these body parts.

So we can, and maybe should, admit this is the same as saying we need to protect men qua men sometimes and women qua women sometimes. And today, by protect, I mean disambiguate gender, so we don’t lose sight of men qua men and women qua women, and ruin the future possibility of anyone feeling comfortable in any body.

One step at a time. The designation of male/man and female/woman based on penis and vagina should be basic. The complexity can only be layered on top of that simplicity first. One step in the transition at a time. Solid understanding of “male” and bright line distinction from “female” has to be the first step.

↪Fire Ologist... — Banno

So do you agree I understand you or not?

You said: “ “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence"

And you said:

the point here is to bring out the immoral acts that are sometimes the result of faith unfettered. — Banno

So I clarified your statement about what faith involves as the following:

I said: Faith involves acting on belief, and that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.

There are two large parts: belief despite insufficient evidence, and, acting on such belief, involved in faith.

Does my restatement show that I understand your premise? Or not?

Who me- my point?
I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before I critique it.

So the premise is: “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence" — Fire Ologist

And nothing else I said misunderstood that premise, correct or not? Are we on the same page, talking with each other here or what?

Edit added.

My restatement made to show I understand: “Faith involves acting on belief, but that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.”

You agree?

Ok good, so we are just talking.

So you want to change "1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence" to "P1: “Faith is belief in something without empirical or rational justification.” — Banno

I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

So the premise is: “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence"

I think “without sufficient evidence” is fairly close to “without empirical or rational justification” so that isn’t too difficult.

I think “faith involves” is somewhat different than “faith is” but it’s a distinction that isn’t really at the heart of this particular discussion. I think we can say “faith is or involves…” and not get hung up on definition versus faith uses/anecdotes.

But “acting on belief” - huge difference. And I like it better. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence.

So the act involved in faith is not merely believing without sufficient evidence. Believing isn’t the key act. Faith involves some other act, like leaping off a cliff, based on an unsubstantiated belief. Faith involves acting on belief, but that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.

Is that the gist then?

1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence
Premise: Faith, particularly religious or blind faith, is often characterized by belief in something without (or beyond) empirical or rational justification.
Banno frequently targets faith that forgoes critical evaluation, emphasizing that such belief is often sustained despite contrary evidence or lack of evidence. — ChatGPT

This is a ton of content. Just to see if I can pass an entrance exam, can I re-write the premise summary to strengthen it bit:
“Faith is belief in something without (or beyond) empirical or rational justification.”

Even the “or beyond” could be removed and we’d still get the basic gist.

And You/chatGPT add “such belief is often sustained despite contrary evidence” but that sounds like a species of “belief without justification” so have I got the first premise right?

P1: “Faith is belief in something without empirical or rational justification.”

complain that there are too many atheists — Banno

I’m not angry or complaining.

I don't mind — Tom Storm

I think you do better than that. Not only do you not mind theists, you bring up God or religious faith yourself. Which is certainly fine with me, but it’s worth noting who is raising these subjects.

Quite honestly, (and that is the real issue - we need to trust each other), but quite honestly, I like my science straight, no ice, and no chaser. That’s the only kind of science there is.

I like philosophy as a blend of physics with the metaphysical/logical/linguistic. I don’t really like philosophy of religion, or shoehorning God into science. Science is specifically about using my own reason to judge everything for myself, so there is no desire in me to go beyond testable evidence when talking philosophy.

The expertise here on TPF is epistemology and logic (language/math) and metaphysics and mind, and anthropology and science generally, and theories of our shared, physical world.

Philosophic conversations particularly about mind and language often then bump into conceptualization and intention, and even immaterial substance, and then it completely crashes into God and the mystical One which is nothingness…and maybe we’ve all gone astray again.

I have no problem making the goal discussions of more falsifiable science here on TPF. We won’t nail this goal, because of the temptations of mind stuff and conceptual non-physical stuff, but “God” is almost always a stretch, a deus ex machina, in philosophy.

I’m good with that here on TPF.

Can’t avoid “God” in a “what is faith” thread, but then maybe this subject is tough for this forum.

Why would I be okay not discussing God so much on this forum?

Let’s say this thread is not what is faith, but what is my wife? “What is Fire’s wife?”

We could talk about her chemistry for hours, and and theorize about where the specific atoms that make up her body today were one billion years ago, and the path those atoms took, etc. We could spend hours talking about my wife and, never get to how she falls asleep on the couch most nights exhausted from taking care of everyone around her, and how she’s got a great sense of humor and is a people person, etc.

Here, on the forum, a conversation about the chemistry of my wife is, let’s say, less open to attack. But when I personally talk about God, like when I talk about my wife, I’d rather talk about the lived experiences, the particulars as I know them. That’s the good stuff in that topic, to me - the only really interesting stuff. Logic itself might seem trivial when discussing my wife’s habits. I am perfectly happy to admit that conversations like those, about God or my wife, are not philosophy, not scientific, and less fitting on this forum.

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out.
— Tom Storm — Banno

I am not angry. Just so you know.

Like many here, I have read and otherwise studied hundreds of thinkers.

I do believe there are answers (i believe this partly because of faith in what reason is).
I believe I have some of these answers, but not many. I believe there are many more answers to be had by reading more and listening to more people.

To me there is wisdom in Wittgenstein - the gaming that is human mental activity is an important insight worth studying.
And there is wisdom in Aristotle - just trying to say the law of non-contradiction out loud for the first time in history is someone to read - he was one of if not the the first expressly empirical scientist.
Like Descartes just stopping everything - left with nothing but, his existing.
Or Kant clarifying where the thing in itself lies.

None of these discussions need say “God” and I’m fine with that. Descartes best work was when he was alone, not fooled by any God be they evil or beneficial geniuses.

I will admit that sometimes I see people talking about God, and it sounds nothing like God to me, like chemistry sounds nothing like my wife, and because so many seem interested in posting “God” and “faith” as words/concepts, I can’t help but want to try and redirect things and stop the bleeding, but I only hope I don’t make matters worse.

Here is the problem:

But I find it difficult not to see many of their comments as disingenuous, in bad faith. — Banno

Scientists don’t seem to trust theists even when they are not talking about God.

Banno, is it possible you are a little biased against me?
Maybe I’m just not who you seem to think I am because of your own constructions and prejudices?

Not bad faith, but just, not enough experience of me to distinguish me from the biased sense of “theist” you see in your reading of my posts?

Does this post really seem disingenuous or in bad faith to you?

How about you, Tom? Don’t I seem like I am just speaking my mind? No anger. No reason to lash out or seek to judge the cause of decadence.

But in any event, I have said nothing in bad faith. Nothing in this post need be doubted for its sincerity.

I do believe “culture is debased and decadent.” Although I would say “adrift” and not “debased and decadent”, but I see a basic point in your words, and I have a skeptical view of what people do with their culture.

There is no reason, theists and atheists can’t discuss many things as equals - as individual thinking beings making their way sharing their views on anything.

If the opinion is “theists think they know it all and lash out at those who they say don’t know it all”, it is certainly one way to look at these things, but when I disagree, I hope you recognize that there is a whole person, just like you, acting in good faith, trusting your good faith, as I give you my opinion; we are vulnerable together in these conversations. That is because of trust. There is no bad faith over here. (That actually feels like an insult.)

Maybe I hurled some wise ass remarks myself, but no bad faith.

Saying “their comments are disingenuous, in bad faith” didn’t seem like a wise ass remark - just an honest judgement, probably against me.

So I respond - does anything I’ve said here, which is all from my heart, resonate with you?

If the answer is no, please explain because I don’t see how that is possible.

People who live in societies where such theists are trying to set the government agenda have good reason to be concerned with the thinking of such people. — wonderer1

Yeah, but not about those theist’s thoughts about God and religion - concerned about those people’s thoughts about policy, law and enforcement. We were talking about what is faith and God, not what lousy arguments might support bad public policy.

When God is described as the Ground of Being, this typically means that God is the fundamental reality or underlying source from which all things emerge. — Tom Storm

Sounds like Leibniz or Spinoza too. Or maybe Malebranch, or Hegel’s absolute, or Berkley. Or Aristotle’s prime mover, or the Platonic “good” or Plotinus’ “the One.”

Personally I find most philosophers’ conceptions of God are hollow shells that barely outline any type of entity; or they are anthropomorphic wishful thinking, slapping a face and personality on something that did not ask for it, like “being” or “the one” or “necessity”.

My sense is, if it’s a question of God, it is a question of personhood, as there is no larger more encompassing thing in the universe besides the person (as far as as I have experienced thus far). The person contains all else in his ability to know. Therefore, for me, anything I might find that I would call “God” has to be able to talk with me in order for me to know it as God. Otherwise it might be just thunder, or the ground of being, or something else I could make lower than a person.

And if we seek God in the empirical reality of other persons, then it becomes a question of truth and love. These are where I find God - in another person’s truthful testimony of what they love. God emerges there.

Whenever you find God, you find God was already there. But you also find something new you didn’t expect as well. With God, there is always more than you expected.

The mystical traditions are better at speaking this way without sounding religious, but they don’t sound scientific either.

They're the ones who often call the worshippers of other faiths idolaters. They are rigid, — Tom Storm

they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths. — Tom Storm

Lousy people to talk to about any religion, be it their own or the ones they rigidly belittle. Shake the dust off of your sandals when leaving those discussions.

Basically, who cares what they think? And yes I know people who sound that way - most of them, if pressed, realize they don’t understand their own faith let alone the faiths they belittle.

…in my humble opinion regarding this theological, so not philosophical, subject.

I've given you more consideration than your posts deserve. — Banno

Well then, on behalf of myself, and all those who muddle through my posts, thank you for that extra consideration you’ve given.

meh. — Banno

You’ve given us all back something to consider here that’s for sure. :rofl:

Astonishing.

the sort of psychological discrediting we see here between Leon and Fire. It's a way to not address the actual contents of the arguments presented. "Othering" atheists so that they can safely be ignored, and we don't have to give due consideration to what they say - perhaps. — Banno

Amazing. Just stunned.

The reference to psychology, to not addressing content, to “othering” (great word!). Truly stunned.

How could you say that and not see yourself?

That is exactly how I would describe what you try to do to me.

It’s like you were drawing a self-portrait.
For the others, like me and Leon. :lol:

——-

You’ve been over-duly considered, and I’d still consider you again, but I’d love to see some actual, humble, respectful consideration come my way.

Like I just gave Tom.

Or am I still too muddle-headed to tell you've already given me appropriate consideration, Banno?

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. — Tom Storm

I know plenty of atheists, even just around here - all individual people, with different strengths of conviction, strengths of their reasons and evidence. Love some of them dearly. Like others for just thinking of these questions.

I agree. “God cannot exist” is not the main thing atheists argue. It does paint the same world picture described more plainly as: “God does not exist.” But I agree, most atheist arguments don’t seek to preclude the very possibility of God.

But many do argue there is no meaningful talking about what God is without first verifying some sort of testable evidence that God is. And, to them, since there is no evidence that God is, no one can really talk about “God” at all.

Which makes sense (literally and figuratively) - with no evidence of some unknown thing, there is nothing to say about that unknown thing.

So in the end, maybe “God cannot exist” isn’t the best way to put it, but it seems pointless try to discuss God in any kind of meaningful detail if we cannot merely say what God is and whether this God is. We always end up stuck here at “Does God exist?” Or we start to talk nonsense without being able to verify whether nonsensical or not.

I recently attended an Easter service in a high Anglican church. — Tom Storm

If you heard readings from the Old Testament and the New Testament, there is first reference to anything about God I would want to discuss. That’s where I would go for things to talk about if we wanted to talk about God.

The theists I meet (mostly Catholics, Muslims and Charismatics) tend not to appreciate ecumenism; they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths. — Tom Storm

A rigid version. So more than one version. Sikhs, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc.

You are getting ahead of us and calling certain things rigid. Rigid version of “God”?

What was there about God you might judge as rigid or not from the old and New Testament readings and prayers at Easter? Let’s go there, or some other text - something concrete we can share between us.

Catholic means universal, and, mystically, the God the Catholics worship excludes no one who seeks God (even you seeking God here in this discussion), so I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “rigid version of God.”

Plenty of people don’t understand God at all, and none of us understand all of God, but let’s not seek to conclude whether one faith in God can be found better, or less rigid than another faith in God if we are incapable concluding whether God exists or what God is.

And I’ve been assuming you think ecumenical impulses are good and “rigid” is bad, so maybe I misread that.

I don’t care about sects and different religions much - I associate God with love too much to start with rigid things that might obfuscate God and love, and beauty, and richness of life, etc.

I actually don’t think there’s much difference in the lives of atheists or believers when it comes to moral commitment or awareness of life’s richness. I see deep empathy, ethical reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps. — Tom Storm

Exactly. I agree. There is not much difference in all of our lives. Life’s richness, empathy, reflection, meaning, beauty - I would add love of other people. Atheists and believers alike have these experiences. These are where I would go to find evidence that God is, or to say what God is.

I tell you this because you seem to talk to religious people a lot about their religion. I’m a religious person - going to mass tomorrow as I do every Sunday. All I do differently from the scientist, is say thank you to God for these experiences, as gifts. I have nothing more or less than what any atheist has, and I get nothing more than what these experiences actually are, I just maybe would add my own gratitude for them, and I give this back to God - my only gift back for receiving as you put it “awareness of life’s richness. …deep empathy, …reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps…” my only gift back is to say “thank you” but I still give it.

This why it is hard to talk about God on TPF to me. It’s not philosophy anymore. It’s theology, or the metaphysics and ontology of faith in God.

I just realized my frustration with many atheists over subjects relating God and faith: It’s either bad philosophy or bad theology that we struggle with when trying to bridge the gap between the theist and the atheist. And theology has no real place here on TPF anyway.

There’s also a lot of religious bigotry towards atheism. That said, I've never felt that believers are not reasoning, unless they are of the evangelical, fundamentalist kind. — Tom Storm

Incurious religious people are no fun to talk to either. Tom, you are much more fun. Clearly curious person. I was talking about “atheists” in general, I do mean most atheists interested in philosophy, but I don’t mean you.

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. As an atheist, I haven't argued that there is no God. My view is similar to most contemporary atheists: I have heard no good reason to believe in a God. — Tom Storm

I believe you, not only because you say it here and you are an honest person, but because, judging by all you say, that quick summary of your present view is what I would say of your stance as well.

Oops - accidentally hit Post button. Will continue reply in another post.

Instead they must argue for the conclusion that religion is irrational, using premises that are acceptable to their interlocutor. — Leontiskos

Precisely - that would be a discussion. You begin with whatever is agreed, lay out your logic and conclusions, and you can dispute/discuss/disagree/agree with the logic and conclusions. But If you dispute the premises already agreed upon, you are either begging to start a new/different conversation, or just hiding some other intention in bad faith, pardon the pun.