Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Objective morality: True or Not?(Thanks to mOjOm)

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I would like to start out by saying that I will not be proving anything, but only providing evidence that objective moral values exist


Moral relativism-Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves.

Moral realism- Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

When Philosophers talk about objective moral values they may refer to them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or it can be false, but it is measured differently than an opinion. So when a moral realist makes a claim such as, "Murder is Evil," he is making a claim about objective moral reality in the same way saying, "I have a tv in my room," is making a claim about objective physical reality. On the other hand, a moral relativist would say that the same statement, "Murder is Evil," is a subjective statement about our or our society's preference much like someone saying, "The Matrix is the best movie of all time."

I'd like to take a minute to clarify something as when I am defending moral realism it is important to understand that I am mainly dealing with Moral Ontology, which is whether a realm of objective moral values exist. This is entirely separate from Moral Epistemology, which is how we know morality.

The first thing I would like to point out is that across the world and through history we see that the same basic principles like murder is wrong, theft is wrong, lying is wrong, but all that aside what is more astonishing is the existence of human altruism throughout all cultures and continues to exist. When I say altruism I mean an action that will not even indirectly produce reproductive benefit to oneself or ones' relatives. This persist throughout Human culture and true altruism is only found within Humans. So natural selection has made all these great leaps from human anatomy, but has failed to keep humans from running into burning buildings to save others or adopting children of another race. How about stepping in front of a bus to move a person they didnt even know?

Second, that majority of moral relativist live moral lives. Moral relativist moral decisions can be based on things like the desire for relaxation and freedom therefore we cant go around hitting people in the face because we will get imprisoned and lose our desires, but can a moral relativist explain all their actions in such a way? Every person eventually is faced with the situation in which a moral infraction would lead to immediate benefit with little or no chance of detection. Now some actions may be based on fear of detection, but can a moral relativist truly explain all there actions this way, or do they occasionally have an odd preference to do was was "right" even with no one watching?

Lets pretend you are the parent of a 3 year old boy and he has hit his 6 year old sister. The boy ask you why he shouldn't hit his sister. Would a parent answer "Self-interest if you hit her she may in turn hit you back," or "Because I am bigger than you and will punish you if you do." No. The parent teaches the child that hitting is wrong regardless if they are moral realist or relativist they will find themselves dealing with children in a reality as though objective moral facts exist. For those of you who are parents and are moral relativist or even if you have baby cousins or something have you even had to explain to a child what you meant when you say "good?" A child does not occasionally confuse the thought of "good" with whatever mommy and daddy force on them or what benefits them. A child intrinsically knows that the first time he lies he has done something wrong. He knows that if mommy and daddy find out that the scenario he just said happened didnt happen then he would be doing something wrong. Even if its the first time a child knows it is something that must be hidden.

The majority of academic philosophers are also moral realist and lean toward the realm of objective moral values actually existing. Here is a recent poll (philpapers.org...).

My problem with moral relativist is they don't even truly live there lives as though they are moral relativist. They believe people should be put in jail for murder. They believe sending a child to a painful death for lots of money is evil even if you would be devoid of all of the negative emotions and memory of the event.

I am not saying this proves objective morality, but I do believe that objective morality is the best explanation for some of the information above.

edit on 7-8-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: Typo




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
From my point of view.

Every soul has a balance book with transgressions it have made one direction towards every other soul. Some call it karma. Being predatory or parasite on another increases those transgressions even if you can spin it so that the other person is fooled. In the end all everyone reaps what they seed and many people will find that very annoying since they have no clue how predatory they have been and the suffering they have caused to souls they have not even met because of their ignorance.

Moral is not subjective and moral relativism is a trap you can hurt yourself very badly in.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Can you simplify it so the other 90% of the population can understand it.

Lets try, the fundamental motivation of all human behavior is to what?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because something occurs on a regular basis does not mean it is objective.

Murder, lying and self-seeking does occur, thereby making the hope for moral objectivity itself an example of moral relativism. Of course everyone wishes everyone else's morality to be the same as theirs, but in reality, the exact opposite is the case.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because something occurs on a regular basis does not mean it is objective.

Murder, lying and self-seeking does occur, thereby making the hope for moral objectivity itself an example of moral relativism. Of course everyone wishes everyone else's morality to be the same as theirs, but in reality, the exact opposite is the case.



Thank you!! That is a better way of saying what I was trying to say earlier in another thread.

If objective morality was in fact objective and inborn, it would then have to be the same moral code. But anyone who simply takes some time to learn about human nature can see for themselves that this isn't so. The more different the persons culture and lifestyle and experiences, the more different their morality will be.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

My problem with moral relativist is they don't even truly live there lives as though they are moral relativist. They believe people should be put in jail for murder. They believe sending a child to a painful death for lots of money is evil even if you would be devoid of all of the negative emotions and memory of the event.



I don't think you understand what subjective morality means. It doesn't mean that the Moral Codes I have come to understand as True for myself are any less meaningful because I have created them myself. I don't require some authority figure to dictate what my morals are supposed to be for them to be meaningful. It means that I have come to understand and believe them to be true by my own experience rather than just having them commanded upon me without my understanding why. It also means that depending upon the situation they might be flexible or even incorrect.

Take lying for example. Lying is morally wrong. Yet parents lie to their kids about all kinds of things for different reasons, many of which are not morally wrong at all and many of which are. Yet they are all lies just the same. So to say it is morally wrong to lie isn't always correct.

Morality is a concept and like all concepts, exist in the mind and emotions of man. Saying there is some objective morality written in the heart of man is no more true than saying that literally there are some laws carved into their actual hearts.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Saying there is some objective morality written in the heart of man is no more true than saying that literally there are some laws carved into their actual hearts.

I have researched this subject for years and my conclusion is that things are clearly not what they appear to be.

If you spend time studying NDE's, it really becomes apparent.

A film I watched recently has a good illustration of this:


Melisa: But surely no one would choose that if they knew you really existed?

Jesus: Not so, nobody goes into hell blindfolded. In one way or another, I've revealed myself to everyone.

Melisa: But if they could just see you...

Jesus: Not even that would be enough. Look at satan, he stood before me in the very throne room of God. But he thought the beauty and the power bestowed was somehow earned. Gave himself over to pride. Scratch any sin and just below the surface you'll find pride... The Encounter

As to those who live in tribes without God’s Word, God has revealed Himself in the hearts of all men. Through general revelation, man can sense God’s existence and see His power. www.tillhecomes.org...

In Ro 1:18-20, Paul was declaring that God has revealed Himself to all mankind. Old Testament scriptures proclaim that God has revealed Himself to everyone through nature (Ps 19:1-3), but Paul was stating here that there is an intuitive revelation of God within every person.

There are five words used in these three verses to describe the extent to which God has revealed Himself to mankind, and they are worth special note. Any one of these five words used by itself would have made a strong argument for Paul's case. However, the combination of these words in just two sentences emphasizes the certainty of Paul's claims.

The use of the word "all" in Ro 1:18 shows the extent to which God has revealed Himself. God has placed a witness within every person against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Therefore, no one will be able to stand before God on the Day of Judgment and say, "God is not fair." He has given all people who have ever lived, regardless of how remote or isolated they may have been, the opportunity to know Him. They are without excuse. www.awmi.net...

God has revealed Himself to everyone; no one is inexcusable when they say they don’t believe in Him. Second, that by rejecting Him, they turn to the worship of created things rather than Creator. This is not just true of ancient forms of paganism, but equally is true of modern atheism (consider atheist Lawrence Krauss's statement, “Forget Jesus, the stars died for you”) and is certainly true for the autonomous, humanistic thinker such as Buddha and those who follow him. They worship man in general by exalting Mankind as the judge of everything else or may even worship the Buddha. So yes, it is possible to adhere to a godless religion – in fact, it is impossible not to be religious regardless of one’s professed beliefs.

www.apricotpie.com...

He discloses himself in three basic ways:

First, he reveals himself in the world of nature. Scripture tells us, and experience confirms, that we get a sense of God's wisdom, majesty, and power in the world of nature. You cannot study this marvelous universe -- with all of its complexity of design, its interrelatedness, and its universal manifestation of the same laws -- without coming to some comprehension of a Great Designer. There is a Mind involved in creation. It is incredible to me that some scientists who work in these areas never grasp this simple fact. Everything in nature is shouting at us that there is a Mind of great intelligence, wisdom, and power behind it. The majesty of God is visible in the beauty of his world, the lofty height of the mountains, and the roaring of the sea. These all evoke a sense of worship.

Second, God reveals himself in Scripture. The Bible is the most amazing book in the world. No other religious book has the qualities and characteristics of this one. Even though it has come from many different sources across hundreds of years, it presents an unusual manifestation of harmony. All of the books blend together and confirm each other. When you search deep into its pages, you discover that there are no errors or contradictions. Yet it speaks far beyond the understanding of the profoundest mind.

It is evident to anyone who reads the Bible carefully, and properly, that it is something greater than man could produce. God has spoken in his Word. It reveals his character, it tells us of his work both in creation and redemption, and it unfolds the great ultimate purposes of God -- what he is doing with the universe in which we live. We would know none of this without the Word of God.

There is still a third means of God's self-communication -- personal worship. When we take the facts of nature and the revelation of Scripture and begin to respond to them in prayer and obedience, this is true worship. Praising him, praying to him and ascribing value to him, do something to us. Our mind becomes illuminated and we begin to understand the words of his book more clearly. They sometimes glow with life and seem to leap off the page to grab your heart. We are enormously impacted by these great words of Scripture or even by standing on a mountain top looking out over a beautiful vista at a glowing sunset, we are moved by the majesty and greatness of God to know him in greater vision.

www.bhartmann.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
You are all confusing me with your words. Scholars like to think Socrates was looking for objectivity and a standard in Plato's dialogues. I used to think so as well. I think he was just as confused as I am right now.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DelayedChristmas
My research on Socrates last year led me to the same exact conclusions...


There is a vast difference between the Humanistic "gospel of Socrates" and the Gospel of Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Christ). Today's flawed Humanistic thinking, both "Secular" and Christian, are loosely based on this same Socratic philosophy: the "gospel of Socrates". They assert or imply that "all men" (even unregenerate men) [3] are born Autonomous, and can establish meaning (even Divine Meaning as in the case of Christian Humanists) using mans' unregenerate Fallen intellect alone using Fallen human reason. This idea has slowly crept into the very fabric of society without so much as a question and has become "perfectly acceptable" in most educational institutions and nearly all denominations of the Assemblies!

G-d does Provide Common Grace to all men. These are abilities that have remained "in the flesh" after the Fall of Adam. They are not "in Innocence", but Fallen. This includes the intellect, the will and human faith as well. These human attributes are present, to a greater or lesser extent, in all of unregenerate mankind.

The "gospel" of Socrates vs. the Gospel of Yeshua (Jesus

In some ways I think Christianity completes what Socrates was looking for in his search for the true meaning of justice. It’d be interesting to see his reaction if he ever had the chance to hold the full Bible in his hand and studied it in more depth. esmancientgreeks.wordpress.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
I have researched this subject for years and my conclusion is that things are clearly not what they appear to be.



So have I and yet we have each arrived at different conclusions.

But I also do not agree with most of what those quotes you posted either. Some of them are the same empty claims I've read a thousand times. I simply do not agree with them and have plenty of reasons why.

This is also not a subject I'm willing to make up my mind about because of someone else and their personal story they wrote in a book or filmed for TV. Either I experience it myself or it's a no deal.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You seem to be impyin that every human always acts morally even if morals are subjective people will still do things they themselves consider immoral. The point was not that murder lying and theft happen a lot the point was they are all considered morally wrong across the world and through out history, and that moral objectivity is a better explanation for that fact rather than moral subjectivity. You say that the fact that murder, lying, and theft occur frequently is evidence for subjective morality, but I would say it is more likely evidence that we do not always choose to do what is moral. Knowing morality and choosing to do the moral thing are different things entirely. I would never make the argument that our choices are always within our moral framework.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




I don't think you understand what subjective morality means. It doesn't mean that the Moral Codes I have come to understand as True for myself are any less meaningful because I have created them myself.


Trust me I know what subjective morality means. It means that your morals mean absolutely nothing except to you, which makes them what exactly? Just because you mean something to you doesn't give them actual significance in reality. That would be like me saying, "chocolate cake is the best type of cake in the world,"and then in turn thinking that had some kind of significance, or meaning, to what others thought about a type of cake. You don't seem to understand that if "you" are your own standard to which all morals are held then they are absolutely meaningless in regards to people and reality. So yes subjective morality does make morals meaningless as there is no objective standard to which they can be held. If someone is being honest there is no way that they can say that morals have no objective standard to which the can be held. It seems to me the reason you don't want to believe in an objective moral standard is because you know that an objective moral standard that transcends humans thoughts and emotions then that moral law brings up the question what put that law in place. I believe the objective moral standard to which all humans know and are held to is Love.

Yes concepts exist in the minds of man but they are made about the external reality. For example the concept of the law of gravity, does it exist only in the mind and emotions of man or is it a physical force within the universe? I doubt you would conclude that gravity is merely something that exist in the mind. Concepts are normally how we describe aspects of what we observe. Just because our thoughts and words are formed in the mind doesn't mean that there are not objective truths described by those ideas..



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
So have I and yet we have each arrived at different conclusions.

But I also do not agree with most of what those quotes you posted either. Some of them are the same empty claims I've read a thousand times. I simply do not agree with them and have plenty of reasons why.

This is also not a subject I'm willing to make up my mind about because of someone else and their personal story they wrote in a book or filmed for TV. Either I experience it myself or it's a no deal.

Very interesting response.

My own personal experiences are what actually convinced me.

I had a supernatural encounter in 1979 that left me literally knowing something that I probably never would have believed otherwise.

To this day I am unsure what actually triggered that encounter but it impacted my beliefs in a very powerful way.

As for experience VS 'empty claims'...

There may be something to that because God always gives proof before He expects faith.

More important than that is a lesson that Thomas had to learn from experience himself:


Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

This spiritual principal about those who believe without seeing may actually be what triggered the encounter I mentioned above.

Hungry for an experience?

Try believing...



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
The word perspective has yet to be mentioned, objective morality in regards to the subconscious mind (primary mind) is very different and usually in direct conflict with the self-conscious (secondary mind) perspective of morality.

When you do not take into account the fact we have two conflicting minds within our singular brain the discussion of objective morality becomes unnecessarily complex.

What is justifiably right for the subconscious to instigate may not be necessarily that which the self conscious mind reasons to be good.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Very interesting response.

My own personal experiences are what actually convinced me.

I had a supernatural encounter in 1979 that left me literally knowing something that I probably never would have believed otherwise.

To this day I am unsure what actually triggered that encounter but it impacted my beliefs in a very powerful way.

As for experience VS 'empty claims'...

There may be something to that because God always gives proof before He expects faith.


Fantastic reply BTW!!!

I totally understand and agree with everything you just said. Whatever your experience was is exactly what I was talking about. Whatever it was, is something I haven't experienced. In a way I envy you for that too. If something like that happened to me I'm sure I'd feel the same. Which is also why I would never argue against it either.

I am a skeptic by nature also, so when I meet someone like you who says something like that honestly, I believe you as well, But it is also something that just belongs to you. Unfortunately it's impossible to share such experiences with others. So while I believe what you say and believe you're being honest, it's still only your experience and so I'm left without that answer other than to be a third party and hearing you tell me about it.

Your next section I also think is interesting and makes an interesting point!.


More important than that is a lesson that Thomas had to learn from experience himself:


Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

This spiritual principal about those who believe without seeing may actually be what triggered the encounter I mentioned above.

Hungry for an experience?

Try believing...


Great analogy, I like it. To me what it's saying is also a bit depressing but not without hope. Basically that those who "Know God" without seeing, or experiencing God are Blessed. Depressing because I must not be one of those who are blessed then, but hopeful in that it could happen at some other point in the future.

I actually am hungry for such an experience too. But I don't think belief alone is the answer. In fact I think belief might be the wrong word actually. It's not belief but Faith that the story is talking about. It should be worded, Blessed are those who have Faith.

Just like your experience you talked of before. That changed your beliefs even in ways that never would have happened to you without that experience. To me that means at the time, you had your beliefs but without faith. Essentially the position I'm in currently. Then your beliefs were changed because of that experience, but it took that experience to do it. So you now have reason backing up what you believe. That's great for you personally, but it doesn't exactly help the rest of us. Until I have such an experience I'm left with the beliefs that I have.

For Thomas, he also had an advantage though. Thomas didn't need faith to believe because he actually met Jesus. He had that experience. So even if Jesus wasn't around he still had that to support his belief. I, like so many others don't have that. So without come kind of "Experience" there is no grounds for that belief. At best I can only adopt such a belief based upon stories like the one you just told me. But for a skeptic that just isn't enough. Like you I think it would take an experience to change that.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   


It should be worded, Blessed are those who have Faith.


It really depends upon what they have faith in.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Trust me I know what subjective morality means. It means that your morals mean absolutely nothing except to you, which makes them what exactly? Just because you mean something to you doesn't give them actual significance in reality.


They still have significance, but only to me. Why would they have any significance to anyone else but me??? I wouldn't expect them to either. They are MY morals. That is exactly why I'm saying Morals aren't Objective. My morals are mine. Yours are yours. Theirs are theirs. But they still have significance otherwise I wouldn't have them.

The difference is that I don't expect others to always have the same morals as me. Sure, most of us have the morals when it comes to the big stuff like Murder or Rape. Most all societies do. But that isn't evidence of an objective morality IMO. It just means it's very common for most people to agree on how to live their life when it comes to interacting with each other in ways dealing with life and death. Plus once again, even though they are shared with most other people there are a few cases where that isn't the case.

More importantly though is when you get to other morals. The ones not so major as things like Murder or Rape. Examples like sex before marriage for example. This is where having moral differences to me is showing the best evidence for the fact that morals are subjective. Or Nudity for another example. You will find those who think premarital sex is absolutely immoral and those who think it's totally fine and you'll find most people who somewhere along the scale between those two.

To me that is showing that morality is certainly subjective otherwise everyone would see it the same. Obviously most people say Murder or Rape is bad because those are extremely important encounters if you're the one involved. So obviously they will most often be the same from person to person. But the less extreme ones you see that morals are shaped by each individuals own perception of things and experiences.




That would be like me saying, "chocolate cake is the best type of cake in the world,"and then in turn thinking that had some kind of significance, or meaning, to what others thought about a type of cake. You don't seem to understand that if "you" are your own standard to which all morals are held then they are absolutely meaningless in regards to people and reality.


But that's just it. I don't expect MY MORALS to mean anything to you. I don't know why you think YOUR MORALS should mean anything to someone else either. In fact it's that difference in thinking which causes all the trouble. You think everyone is supposed to have the same moral code, most likely the kind you also have and agree with. To me that just seems crazy because we all are experiencing our lives differently to some degree. There is no standard or measuring bar to which some objective comparison can be made. Such standards are only imagined and will change from one person to the next.

This is a major reason why I, like many others, disagree with Religions that support such ideas as a Single Moral Code. It tries to force a certain code of living upon everyone in the same way and every religion has a different code which is expected to be followed. They all claim to have the "True Code" from an unknowable "Divine Source" too. So, because nobody is willing to back down from whatever their code says they just start fighting about it to the death.

History shows proof of this as far back as we know of. To me that's insane because they are all fighting over something that isn't even there. It's all BS and they are killing each other over it. If they would just realize that Reality, at least as far as morality is concerned, isn't absolute. It is subjective and to fight over it only means they will fight over it until only one person or group is left standing who all share the same "beliefs".


It seems to me the reason you don't want to believe in an objective moral standard is because you know that an objective moral standard that transcends humans thoughts and emotions then that moral law brings up the question what put that law in place.


No, you've got it wrong. You think I am avoiding something. That I don't want to see the truth. That's what you mean when you say "I Deny God." But that's not it at all, in fact it's the opposite. This is what Believers think about Non Believers and where all the Blaming and Fighting also comes in.

Believers think non believers are choosing not to see something that the believers see, but they aren't. THEY DON'T SEE WHAT BELIEVERS CLAIM TO SEE. I don't know why they won't accept that either.

Just like you and I. You claim you see reality in a certain way and think for some reason that I should see that same reality but have chosen not too. You're wrong. The fact is I don't see the reality you see. Just like you don't see reality the way I do.

Now, once again that is a major difference and it's an important one in how it's addressed. I don't expect you to see the same Reality as me just like I don't expect you to have the same morals as me. You on the other hand do expect that. So when it comes to how we interact with each other a problem occurs. It's going to be a much bigger problem for you however just like it's a bigger problem for Religious Orders when they start to interact with each other.

For me, representing the non religious, as long as we can agree with the major rules like not to kill or rape each other we can interact smoothly. Because I understand that the more minor differences are to be expected. But for the Religious Absolutists, they insist upon everyone having the same set of rules without exception. But that will never happen because, once again, there isn't an absolute objective standard to which we can know. It's subjective and will always be different to some degree.
edit on 8-8-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I find it simpler to state, it is impossible to know what you believe, you can however believe what you believe yet when you come to know what you have believed it ceases to exist as a belief and becomes what you know.

Knowledge therefore diminishes belief which is why those who are justifiably fixated on their beliefs also subconsciously perceive knowledge as a direct threat which must be rejected through, avoidance, denial, distraction or the capacity to devalue it.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
It really depends upon what they have faith in.


Right, but Faith is also a tricky word in how it's used. Faith can be used meaning Belief and/or Trust. The difference between Faith and Belief is Faith is Belief without proof. So like the example of Jesus and Thomas. Faith is Belief without Jesus being there. However, IMO since Thomas had at some point actually met Jesus that still wouldn't be faith exactly because he has his memory of Jesus as support. So since Thomas had actually met him he wouldn't qualify for Faith but Belief.

Not everyone would agree with me however, but that is the only way to separate the different meanings between Faith and Belief. It's also the way they are defined as being different too, but not everyone goes by the same definitions for some things.

So for example, Unicorns exist only on faith. However, if you actually get to meet one first hand, even if it's only for a minute, it would move from faith to a belief because you have gained some evidence for it, even though it's only valid for yourself. Still, your memory of being with or interacting with a unicorn would still be there for you to rely upon for support. Until that happens it's still a belief, but a belief requiring faith.

Hopefully that made sense. It's tricky because belief and faith are used in place of each other when they actually do have a slight difference. You could also maybe say, "Faith always includes Belief, but Belief doesn't always include Faith."



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Not tricky at all, you described it exactly as I perceive it.

While critically studying human behavior I have become much more aware of how much of what the average person says actually makes little reasonable sense, which is why so many are so confused.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join