The value of Faith

These threads move entirely to fast.

Just one point.

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Totally agree, but this really has nothing to do with anything I have discussed. In fact, I have not truly argued against faith in any regard.

I even ascribed that value I have seen in it. In the medical field I have seen faith be a comfort to those with existential angst and crisis.

Also, while the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in no way was Sagan promoting intentional ignorance, or apathy in regards to evidence.

That is, one should keep searching for it.

Its not meant to be used as a justification or excuse for those who have faith.

Else we would not have discovered anything at all.

What I have argued, is that people have asserted I must have faith, to which I have explained fairly comprehensively why I do not.

I have also argued against blind faith in anything. I cannot see how one could support blind faith.

I have also argued against the irresponsibility of peoples words.

Thats it.

Seems people believe having faith in doubting is not faith.....

*Sigh*

No, I do not have faith in doubting, and honestly, that phrase does not even make sense.


Why must the argument be made for me having faith?

Others say they have it, and thats fine, and not even the point of my arguments.

You have it, I am arguing its value in some cases.

Instead of arguing, or discussing its value, you instead change the conversation and insist that I have faith.

No, you could start a thread for me not having faith and its value, but instead you would rather insist that I have it as there seems to be the belief that no one is without faith. In fact it seems to be that everyone must have faith. As it is the one absolute of the human condition apparently. However that is simply not the case, though I can see there is a staunch denial to that proposition.

It is interesting to be told what I "believe" though.

Thats a new one.

It has moved fast here I've noticed, for my part I just happen to have a schedule and workplace that allows such frequent participation.

Sagan said what he said. Whatever meaning you ascribe to it is a matter of opinion as there is no objective evidence at all for any single interpretation, nor any way to measure such. Meaning cannot be measured, only approximated by human beings. The facts are the facts, but they do not interpret themselves, that is the sole purview of human consciousness. The meaning you find in it underscores the worldview that you place your faith in.

Khaos wrote: That is, one should keep searching for it.

To do so implies a faith that there is something more to be found. If not then the search would be deemed futile from the outset and thus abandoned (at least by any person attempting to work within the limits of reason). One value of faith is that it can offer the inspiration to continue to look deeper into and understand more and more about life and reality. I guess that is related somewhat to what you mention about dealing with existential angst, maybe.

To do so implies a faith that there is something more to be found

No, there is plenty we can measure and see the effects of that we have yet to identify.

In many cases we know there is something more to be found, we just cant see it yet.

Hypothesis do not start in a void.

The inspiration to look deeper is due to observation of that which we cannot explain.

Also, I am not ascribing meaning to Sagans words. That was what was done when it was quoted, as it was but one quote in a conversation and without context.

It is fairly clear that while Carl Sagan did not himself believe in God. He was willing to say he was agnostic, which was charitable, but the fact was he knew he couldnt disprove the existence of God and I am not trying to either. Thats not even the subject.

Its also interesting that you say that I cant ascribe meaning, but many here will be arrogant enough to tell me I have faith. Essentally ascribing a trait to me by default.

Hmm....

Similarly people say that Einstein believed in God by taking a quote out of context(essentially ascribing meaning), to which Einstein himself tried to rectify and was part of a video I posted here...Perhaps in this thread, or perhaps not. Somewhere recently though.

What a little word to spark so much conflict, yet only viewed in most as reference to religion when its not just for that....

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant. The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust, or belief.

There is a wide spectrum of opinion with respect to the epistemological validity of faith. On one extreme is logical positivism, which denies the validity of any beliefs held by faith; on the other extreme is fideism, which holds that true belief can only arise from faith, because reason and physical evidence cannot lead to truth. Some foundationalists, such as St. Augustine of Hippo and Alvin Plantinga, hold that all of our beliefs rest ultimately on beliefs accepted by faith. Others, such as C.S. Lewis, hold that faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite moods to the contrary.

William James believed that the varieties of religious experiences should be sought by psychologists, because they represent the closest thing to a microscope of the mind—that is, they show us in drastically enlarged form the normal processes of things. For a useful interpretation of human reality, to share faith experience he said that we must each make certain "over-beliefs" in things which, while they cannot be proven on the basis of experience, help us to live fuller and better lives.[citation needed]. James was a leading proponent of pragmatism which argues that beliefs are "true" if and only if they are useful to the believer, rather than corresponding to anything noumenal. While pragmatism has now found applications in modern statistics ("Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.") its original formulation by James was strongly motivated by his desire to unify rationality and science with faith.

Fideism
Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology).

Fideism is not a synonym for religious belief, but describes a particular philosophical proposition in regard to the relationship between faith's appropriate jurisdiction at arriving at truths, contrasted against reason. It states that faith is needed to determine some philosophical and religious truths, and it questions the ability of reason to arrive at all truth. The word and concept had its origin in the mid- to late-19th century by way of Catholic thought, in a movement called Traditionalism. The Roman Catholic Magisterium has, however, repeatedly condemned fideism.


You don't have to be religious to have Faith. it has meanings outside the religious world.....

Khaos wrote: Also, while the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in no way was Sagan promoting intentional ignorance, or apathy in regards to evidence.

That is, one should keep searching for it.

Its not meant to be used as a justification or excuse for those who have faith.

Here you are interpreting Sagan, placing meaning into his statement that he himself did not explicitly express. And you are also expressing faith in the potential for finding explanations and evidence for things we have not yet explained. We have explained many things over the course of human history true, but what is there to say that there will be any more explanations to come? So far as we know that things we have yet to explain don't have to do with the things we can, otherwise the things we can't explain would already be explained.

For my part I would not say that anyone must have faith, I would just say that everyone does have faith, in something anyway. The same as I wouldn't say that you must breathe (one can hold one's breath for example and I wouldn't not think ill or less of them or more of myself for it), but everyone does breathe, it's just an inseparable part of the human animal. In the case of faith that is due to the nature of consciousness and the self-awareness of our own limitations and limited availability of resources like time and information.

Lets try this again:

Of what value does faith hold to you personally? (ask the right question, right?)

Faith and reason have shared an adversarial relationship for centuries. One form of rationality is science and since the Enlightenment, science has assumed the role of primary challenger to religious faith. Science is today the reigning interpreter of perceived reality and it is ever pushing the boundaries of what can be perceived through the invention of more powerful instruments of measurement. This strength is also its weakness. Science is interested in what can be perceived and measured, but there is more to reality than what a mathematical language says about what is perceived.

Rationality and science can only tell us so much about reality and there is more to reality than science and rationality can address. Science cannot help human beings as social animals in some of the most important aspects of our lives: our ethics, morals, aesthetics, etc. And when it comes to knowing and understanding what it means to be human, either an individual or a member of a social group, science is at a loss. Social sciences fill this role and are judged by the scientific establishment on how well they adhere to the scientific method; how well they measure and quantify, but even what the sciences and social sciences tell us provides little more than descriptions. These kinds of descriptions help little in addressing, for example, moral issues or ethical choices, the nature of beauty or virtue. Knowing that humans evolved over millions of years and that we are biological organisms provides little knowledge when we want to know what is ethical (how to act/what to choose), who we are, what the meaning of life is, and similar questions. These questions are addressed in myth – the narratives that tell us about our origins, our identity, what is right and good, what reality is and what our relationship to it and one another is all about. Believing that scientific knowledge and rationality are the most authentic way to live in the world is as ignorant as it is arrogant. The faithful do not live without reason but rather put it in its proper place. Persons who believe that mythic narratives not only tell us more about reality, but more importantly, address the most important aspects and issues of living have an advantage over those who live exclusively according to the precepts of reason and the successes of science.

When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:

Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this Force [capitalization mine in acknowledgement of the forum's venue ] beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.

— H. G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.157; quoted in Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer (Princeton University Press, 1999) pp. 39-40.

This experience of Einstein's, his veneration of the Force beyond comprehension, is the experience that the word 'faith' is used to elucidate.