The value of Faith

rugadd wrote: What I'm getting out of all of this is "informed Faith" good. "blind faith" bad. Yes?

nope

informed faith good

blind faith good

For those that need" proof", informed faith might work for them. For some no proof is needed for faith. Call it blind, confident, dumb, inspired, trust or what ever. Faith is faith because of incomplete or absence of information.

Of course this is my unsubstaniated opine but it adds value to my life to have faith.

rugadd wrote: What I'm getting out of all of this is "informed Faith" good. "blind faith" bad. Yes?

Well, I think it good to be informed on something you believe to be true wouldnt you?

I dont have faith, I simply follow where the evidence leads.

Evidence can be wrong, and change.

Science is a cemetery of dead ideas.

So I change in regards to evidence.

Faith in my experience, informed or not, makes it harder for people to change, by its very nature.

It is also hard for me to accept people putting faith in a worldview that in some cases is as old as the bronze age(if not older)

These people were not operating with the intelligence, or knowledge we have now.

They were trying to explain the world as best they could, and I dont fault them for that, as they are a part of the measurement of our growth in understanding the world around us.

Think if Buddha, or Lao Tzu saw a smart phone.

Totally different worldview.

Hell, even some of the most ignorant people around today would seem to have godlike knowledge and wisdom to those who were deemed titans of philosophy in the past.

Rickie The Grey wrote:

rugadd wrote: What I'm getting out of all of this is "informed Faith" good. "blind faith" bad. Yes?

nope

informed faith good

blind faith good

For those that need" proof", informed faith might work for them. For some no proof is needed for faith. Call it blind, confident, dumb, inspired, trust or what ever. Faith is faith because of incomplete or absence of information.

Of course this is my unsubstaniated opine but it adds value to my life to have faith.

Please, explain how blind faith is a good thing given even a but a cursory understanding of history.

Not even old history, just look at the Phelps family.

Or whats going on in several parts of the world due to blind faith.

Lol, and worse, many times, they believed they were informed.

Now your simply being irresponsible with your words.

[/quote]Please, explain how blind faith is a good thing given even a but a cursory understanding of history.

Not even old history, just look at the Phelps family.

Or whats going on in several parts of the world due to blind faith.

Lol, and worse, many times, they believed they were informed.

Now your simply being irresponsible with your words.[/quote]


Blind faith, just like most everything else, has a good and bad side. It's the whole Yin Yang thing.

Now your simply being irresponsible with your words

Blowing some hot air to get some flames?

Blind faith, just like most everything else, has a good and bad side. It's the whole Yin Yang thing

Nice evasion to the question

Yin/Yang is a cop out, it assumes a balance where there is not one.

Percentages count for more than balance, and all I asked was for one example.

Even I have a couple.

My point is ultimately, blind faith, percentage wise, the bad far outweighs the good.

Blowing some hot air to get some flames

No, you are being irresponsible with your words.

This is not an attempt to provoke you, it is a simple observation.

Now, your just being silly though, and I am seeing progressively little value in engaging you.

You obviously have no interest in a real intelligent discussion, and have admitted to being perfectly fine in ignorance, so I will leave you there.

Khaos wrote:

so I will leave you there.

We're just different.

You - Me

analytical - intuitive

want to win - want egalitarianism

tight - lose

zest intricacy- strive for KISS

evocative - encouraging

certain - open/agape

There are proabably a few more contrasts but my point is we are different, so what?

I think (have faith I can accept that and continue to dialogue with you, after all isn't diversity all about our differences?.

I like it how you call Khaos tight and certain while at the same time making all those presumptions and assertions about the two of you.

Let alone that the only line that makes any remote sense at all is also the one with qualities that aren't even opposites.

Besides, and Khaos will surely correct me if I misunderstood him, when he says he sees increasingly little value in engaging with you, what he means is that he feels like he is in a conversation with someone he can neither learn anything from nor teach anything to. It is not about the points of disagreement for him, it's about the fact that you will neither defend what you think such that he could learn from it nor have it challenged such that you would. That doesn't mean he doesn't want to talk to you, he just deems any discussion that could possibly result on those premises ultimately futile.

On a side note, as Khaos pointed out in his comment on the Ying-Yang dichotomy, the fact that you are different doesn't say anything about the validity of either of your positions. Also, diversity, let alone opposition on it's own is not necessarily a good or productive thing. We have examples of quite the contrary in a rather prominent and important place right now.

t is not about the points of disagreement for him, it's about the fact that you will neither defend what you think such that he could learn from it nor have it challenged such that you would. That doesn't mean he doesn't want to talk to you, he just deems any discussion that could possibly result on those premises ultimately futile.

When making certain claims, especially ones that are highly if not outright irresponsible without any backing explanation, I think it is less about someone "defending" what they think as opposed to taking responsibility and accountability for the words of your voice in a venue for growth.

Saying blind faith is good is irresponsible when done so in a void, without explanation.

It is dangerous, and irresponsible to say such things, especially if you do not plan to back that kind of statement up with an example, or some kind of explanantion.

Cults, and many others out to exploit people rely on that thinking.

Conversations are a reciprocal process, and all I see is someone who is going to simply say things without any regard for what his words could influence within others, and is dismissive to his responsibilities and passive/aggressive to the extreme.

This is more than futile, it is making me part of the irresponsibility, and I wont do that.

e're just different.

You - Me

analytical - intuitive

want to win - want egalitarianism

tight - lose

zest intricacy- strive for KISS

evocative - encouraging

certain - open/agape

There are proabably a few more contrasts but my point is we are different, so what?

I think (have faith I can accept that and continue to dialogue with you, after all isn't diversity all about our differences?.

Its not about our differences, and your assumptions in above mentioned dichotomies shows that you either cant understand what I put forth, or choose not to.

I have stated im not "certain" of anything, as I dont go off faith, I cant.

You however do, so who is more certain?

I havent tried to "win" anything, I have tried to talk to you, and you want only to be childish.

You claim being intuitive, and if the result of that is to make vague, blanket, irresponsible statements without any attempt to understand your reasoning even to yourself, well, keep it.

Tight/ loose? Please, that doesnt even make any sense at this point.

Your essentially saying that your open and im not, and yet, your the one acting on blind faith, or at least supporting it, which as history can show, faith, blind or not, is much more close ended than anything else.

You claim difference and diversity as if this explains your irresponsible actions in this thread and others when it does not.

Its an attempt to play the victim, and you can have it.

Good Day Rickie.

Khaos wrote: I have stated im not "certain" of anything, as I dont go off faith, I cant.

But we all do...

Even you...

If you trust the documents you see, and trust the words of others, and have not done the tests and work yourself to verify the claims, you too take things on faith...

Now, the faith you take things, provides proof that is good enough for you, and I think that that is great... For many of us, we canont dispute the science, and are not trying to... It is good enough for us too...

Just like I think that although Rickie's faith in a subject is good enough for him, that is great too...

I wouldnt necessarily take Rickie"s word and follow him blindly, i would require some explanation too, and if it fell short, I would have to also leave it at "agree to disagree"...

Rickie's faith doesnt require my approval, and perhaps no matter how long we talk, I will not understnd it either...

You (Gisteron as well) might understand what you understand, but you take it on faith... You read the science papers, and peer reviewed journals, and the logic makes sense, and you understand it fully...

We take things on faith, we fully admit it...

But dont think you do not...

Not my monkeys, not my circus.

BUT

When the monkeys start attacking me or other people...