It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Now before I begin I am going to start by defining faith, as the culture today has started to redefine faith as belief without proof.

faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something

Ok so when I say "we all have faith," that means we all have complete trust and confidence in someone or something.

What we put our faith in is defined by our world view. A worldview is simply a person's mental concept of what is "really real." Just to list examples of the various world views out there:

Christianity
Hinduism
Humanism
Islam
Judaism
Animism
Marxism
Naturalism
Buddhism

The list goes on. Regardless if you hold to one of these world views or one I haven't mentioned you have chosen to put your complete and total trust in something. You have faith.

The question then comes what or who is most reliable when it comes to where our faith should be placed. So how do we determine which worldview is true? I have three test as of now that I use for determining the truth of a world view:

Internal consistency -is the world view consistent within itself
External consistency-is the world view consistent with the sensory data and past sensory data available
Livable consistency-is the world view consistent with the actions of the persons life

I apply these equally to all world views. Now determining someones world view can be kind of tricky so I am going to write a list of questions that help define a world view, I will right my answers and I ask that anyone who participates please do the same.

God: Is there a Supreme Being? If it exist, is it personal or not? If it doesn't, then what?

As a Christian, I would say a personal Supreme being does exist.

Creation: Where did the universe come from? What sustains the uniform nature of the universe? Is all of the reality simply matter and energy or is there a spiritual part of reality?

Universe was caused by a Supreme Being who is eternal(without beginning or end). That supreme being sustains the universe in concordance with his nature or essence. Spiritual parts of reality do exist.

Humanity and Purpose: Do humans have intrinsic value? Does life have a purpose?

Humans have intrinsic value because they were created by God for a purpose. That purpose is to love God and to love our neighbor as we would love ourself.

Moral Order: Who makes the rules? Do some rules apply to everyone?

God's nature is the ultimate standard of goodness and there are Moral absolutes.

Fall: Whats wrong with the world?

Man has a fallen nature

Redemption: Is there a solution if there is something wrong with the world?

Christ

So there is some answers that should give you all an idea of where I am coming from. The question of our world views is not which one takes more faith, but which one is more reliable to put faith in. I would say Jesus Christ is the most person to put your faith in, obviously many will disagree but I look forward to hearing from you all.

Again this thread was not created in an attempt to convert. It is simply a discussion about world views and why we put our faith in the ones we do.




posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"We all have faith in something"

Well it depends on how you define faith.


When I am crossing the street at a busy intersection I have faith in the traffic lights working and drivers obeying traffic laws. But, that faith is based off of prior experience that most drivers will obey the laws and the lights rarely malfunction. The evidence is there to show that happens a high percentage of the time. I still cross with my eyes open gathering evidence of what drivers are doing.

I do not have blind faith. Blind faith would be coming to that same intersection closing my eyes and trying to walk across. IMO the lack of evidence for religions is equivalent to blind faith.

So like I said it depends on how you define faith.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb


Internal consistency -is the world view consistent within itself
External consistency-is the world view consistent with the sensory data and past sensory data available
Livable consistency-is the world view consistent with the actions of the persons life



You are correct that faith can be in anyone or anything. And that includes such things as "self", money, power, guns, etc you get the idea that are not necessarily defining attributes of a worldview or value system.

In fact, my experience with people is that proclamations of faith differ considerably from active use of faith.

The above sentence is what I believe you mean by 'Livable consistency' which in fact is actually inconsistancey.

A religious system can be internally consistant - so can a fantasy world and the best ones are 'internally consistant'.

However I know of few religious systems (which is what I sense you mean by 'faith' and 'worldview') that can be consistant to an individual's experience of reality (physical and not) nor do they encourage members to question those inconsistancies.

And so, we find ourselves in a state of inconsistancy and maybe you can live with a belief system that is not supported by personal experience because of other's 'testimony' but I choose not too.

Frankly what you call 'livable consistancy' (which should read "Livable In-consistancy to be accurate) sounds pretty un-livable to me. As I mature I find comfort and growth in consistancy in all areas of behavior.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




IMO the lack of evidence for religions is equivalent to blind faith.


Ok so notice all you have done is tell me my world view is incorrect because society has labeled it a religion. Yet you have done nothing to present evidence of a more reliable world view to follow. You answered none of the question above. Why don't you give me a little insight into what you believe?

IMO there is plenty of evidence for Jesus Christ, and plenty of evidence that points to intelligent design. Combine the two and you are left with Christianity. That is how I came to my world view.




When I am crossing the street at a busy intersection I have faith in the traffic lights working and drivers obeying traffic laws. But, that faith is based off of prior experience that most drivers will obey the laws and the lights rarely malfunction. The evidence is there to show that happens a high percentage of the time. I still cross with my eyes open gathering evidence of what drivers are doing.


You just contradicted yourself friend. I posted the definition of faith that I was using so you don't have to question how I define faith. You said I have FAITH(or complete trust and confidence in) traffic lights working and drivers obeying traffic laws. Then you said , "I still cross with my eyes open gathering evidence of what drivers are doing."

You don't have complete trust and faith in those drivers as your watching for them to either make a mistake or purposely break the law. Rather you believe it is probable that nothing will happen but you dont put your complete trust in those drivers because you know that they are prone to error, if you completely trusted them and the lights you would have no reason to gather more evidence of what they were doing, does that make sense?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The so called facts are the real problem. It is quite amazing how some can rely solely on something while calling it fact then suddenly the world changes it's mind and now that fact changed but before it changed many people go around much belittling others because their tempory fact gives them some type of false moral highground. What a religion that science is.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd




The above sentence is what I believe you mean by 'Livable consistency' which in fact is actually inconsistancey.


I am not sure what you were trying to say here, but by livable consistency I mean if a person tells me in their worldview is naturalism, all that exist is matter and energy. I would say ok, then why in my experience on earth do humans have intrinsic worth and value regardless of their condition(meaning why is a person in a wheel chair just a valuable to me as say a NFL running back)? If all we are is collection of atoms evolved to a higher level, then strong live and the weak die , why care for the elderly or the handicap? Those people should have less worth, yet in my observational experience those peoples lives are just as valuable as everyone who is physically fit. So I would say the idea that humans don't have intrinsic value does not have livable consistency based on my observational experience in reality. The idea that human intrinsic value is a subjective illusion of the mind might have livable consistency but I would have to meet the person in order to believe they live that life consistently. I would probably key their car right in front of them and if they didn't yell or scream at me and after that when I set their house on fire and told them it was the right way to live they didn't tell me my truth was less correct then their truth then I would believe that they have a world view in which they are consistent and I would respect their intellectual consistency.

Simply put what I meant by livable consistency is the person capable of living life in a way that their worldview(concept of what is "really real") is consistent with their actions in reality. If they are not their actions show the untruthfulness of their world view. Hope that made sense.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Ok so notice all you have done is tell me my world view is incorrect because society has labeled it a religion. Yet you have done nothing to present evidence of a more reliable world view to follow. You answered none of the question above. Why don't you give me a little insight into what you believe?

IMO there is plenty of evidence for Jesus Christ, and plenty of evidence that points to intelligent design. Combine the two and you are left with Christianity. That is how I came to my world view.


I never said that your world view was incorrect that may be how you feel about it being equivocated to blind faith but I never said yours was correct nor incorrect. You assigned that value not I.

As for what I have faith in my faith is based on evidence not blind faith for which there is no evidence or poor evidence.




You just contradicted yourself friend. I posted the definition of faith that I was using so you don't have to question how I define faith. You said I have FAITH(or complete trust and confidence in) traffic lights working and drivers obeying traffic laws. Then you said , "I still cross with my eyes open gathering evidence of what drivers are doing."



No I did not contradict myself. Your definition of faith is complete trust maybe not mine.

Faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence but very few hold to that definition. As to the street lights and drivers I have no evidence that those lights or those drivers will behave in a manner which prior experiences have but I do believe (have faith) that they will based of of similar instances. Evidence that I have faith would be me crossing the street however I do not have blind faith. If given a reason I will reavaluate my belief. With blind faith people ignore evidence to the contrary of their beliefs which is why I classify belief in religion as blind faith.

Complete trust to you is faith and I classify as blind faith in which case there are not many things if any that I have blind faith in.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

your definition fails without determining a level of acceptable evidence. i can say the bible is all the evidence i need then many will counter with asking for proof. that is why i made the ramblings above about accepted facts and how they often change. in my view in my life i have been givin an abundance of factual proof of god but i think most people just do not want to see what i see.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Again your avoiding the questions in the OP. You say you have faith in evidence. That doesn't really give me any insight into what you believe when it comes to those questions. I have trust in evidence to, so whats your point. I believe in God you obviously don't subscribe to any known form of God as you think all religions lack evidence, but what your telling me when you say that is you have more evidence for whatever it is you believe in. So I am interested to here your response to those questions, and to see those questions answered without any faith in anything other than evidence.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




your definition fails without determining a level of acceptable evidence. i can say the bible is all the evidence i need then many will counter with asking for proof.


As I said believing in the bible to me would be considered blind faith I do differentiate. I do not need to ask for proof of your bible being true because such things as world wide flood to date there has been no evidence for. I could understand having faith in parts of the bible but as a whole I cannot.

As I said I don't think I have blind faith in anything though there may be some things that I am simply drawing a blank on.




that is why i made the ramblings above about accepted facts and how they often change.


Apologies, I didn't read your post because it wasn't referenced as a reply to me.




in my view in my life i have been givin an abundance of factual proof of god but i think most people just do not want to see what i see.


To me you have been talking about two different things. In your above sentence you say you have been given sufficient evidence for a god. I don't know what that evidence is or if it is demonstrable to others and I am not saying it isn't sufficient to you. However, at the beginning of your reply you were talking about the bible which is something altogether different to have faith in to me. Because on more than a few occasions the bibles claims have panned out to be false. Even within the bible it has contradicted itself from one account to another to believe it to be true at least to me would be blind faith.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
All of mankind's nature is religious.The amalgamation of all of a persons experiences form their belief in faith of “their Belief System” religion.Herd religions like Christianity or Islam are foundational structures they are not the Belief System itself.Your observation is your Belief System mechanism and is unique to you.You can only believe what you observe.If you believe you see grey aliens in your backyard or riding with you in your car it is your observation and it forms a node (and probably a big node at that) of your Belief System however it does not mean it is truth reality.

That node will attach itself and be observed through the dominant force of your Belief System religion.When Christians have mystical experiences the observation it’s based in the belief in faith of their Belief System with “their Christianity” as the main conduit observation is perceived through.However that does not make the observation of truth reality.

For example .A four year old may hear bumps in the night and observe those sounds as a monster in the closet or under the bed.When they see the shadows of an owl outside the window and hear the branches of a tree rub against the roof they see and hear the monster.They may become extremely frightened and desire a “superman” to save them.The monster is “real” to them through their observation and depending on their Belief System(previous experiences through observation) they may believe monsters are real.

Mankinds Belief System religion is very transparent.It can have major beliefs disappear in one experience.It is also very transitory and is governed by the emotions because experiences are enhanced by observations through the emotions.The stronger the emotion the stronger the belief.When someone really “feels” something it is impossible to divorce that from their experience.However those feelings are is transitory.The same feeling can felt through completely different experiences.The feeling in the pit of your stomach of falling like being on a roller coaster is not much different than that of falling in love yet the experiences are completely different.

The point is the observation of experiences are what forms belief in faith of a persons personal Belief System(BS) religion.Everyones BS religion is different because everyones observations of experiences are different.They are “reality” to the person observing their experiences however the observations of experiences cannot be the truth, the whole truth,and nothing but the truth reality .That is the dilemma of the reality mankind is perceiving.This same dilemma is also observed in the quantum physics theory called model dependent realism.It is the loggerheads physicists have come to in trying to form a “unified theory” of physics.

The observation is only a model of what is perceived.No model can be proven real over another of the same observation.A fish in a fishbowl perceives objects in the room differently than a being(you) not in the fishbowl.The fishbowl glass bends it’s observation of perception.If it could perform mathematic calculations they would be consistent laws with what they are observing inside the fishbowl of things outside the fishbowl even though your observations calculations laws would be different because you are not perceiving things through the bent glass of a fishbowl you are observing the same experience.

The fact is the physical realm universe “life”does not (and cannot) have a unified theory that can be observed by all humans.It is impossible because observation through the BS religion (your fishbowl) is always the conduit and it can only observe model dependent (BS religion) realism.Physics has the truth language of math as the observation conduit and it is still FAR from observing the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The point is it is futile to establish a standard of truth reality by observation through the Belief System religion.It is mostly believing through BS observation there is a monster under the bed and Superman is going to save you from them.However the upside is that does not exclude the truth reality of the existence of a creator God.In fact it is a huge indicator there is a creator God because so many “perceive” a shadow of it in their model of reality.However the even more upside is mans observation through their BS religion of the creator God is not true reality.They are only perceiving owl shadows at best.The foundation is only a creation of their model dependent realism.It may contain elements of truth but it cannot know the truth reality through the model.

In other words their God is only a shadow cast in their mind.They create their God in their image(their mind).By their observations through their BS religion they give it a name(nature and character of the thing or person named) because that is mans (Adams) nature..to “name things it observes.It is all “in” their model dependent realism created “in” their mind.As a man thinks(believes) so he is(acts).Of course this is where the dilemma wrapped in a conundrum is.It is impossible for a person to observe truth reality so what is REALITY.The fact is truth reality cannot be known by observation through the BS religion(btw Yahoshua said this not me).

“The kingdom of the heavens does not come by observation.It is neither here nor there it is in your midst.”

This scripture is perceived by mystics to mean that “heaven” is IN you.However that is not what Yahoshua said.He said the kingdom(rulership) of the heavens(your mind) is in your midst.The pharisees who elicited this response wanted to know “where” heaven was(because they thought they would rule over it with the mashiach)..Yahoshua was saying you have it all wrong because heaven is not a place your heavens is your mind(where you perceive observations) the kingdom of the heavens is to rule as a king OVER your mind(not believe what is observed) by “knowing” the truth of reality.

In essence he was saying he was in their midst.Yahoshua ruled over the kingdom of his heavens because he knew the truth of reality.He was not observing anything through a BS religion he “knew” what the truth of reality was because he lived in it(the Kingdom of the creator God).He performed what are called miracles because he knew physical matter is only a perception of the mind that is observed.

Mankinds BS religion serves a purpose.They observe the things of this life as reality through it.They observe matter as solid when in fact the atoms of matter are composed of 99.99999999999999999% empty space.The particles of that matter are not at fixed points.They can be separated by the distance of the span of the universe.It’s a world that makes almost no sense in it’s models yet mans perception by observation of it is their reality and accept it as believing the truth.For now I accept the beautiful colors of my room being blue even though in truth reality they are not.Our perception serves a purpose however one day it will have fulfilled that purpose and the truth of reality will be known in your heavens.





edit on 4-1-2015 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Again your avoiding the questions in the OP. You say you have faith in evidence.


I see why you missunderstood. I have faith in things that "have been shown to have evidence". Evidence can be many different things. Prior experience can be evidence though that evidence may not be suitable as evidence for others.

Having faith in evidence itself is kind of silly. Evidence is evidence synonymous with fact(s). I have faith in things backed up by evidence/facts. Hope that makes more since.



That doesn't really give me any insight into what you believe when it comes to those questions.


As I said "Complete trust to you is faith and I classify as blind faith in which case there are not many things if any that I have blind faith in."

And just finished saying "I don't think I have blind faith in anything though there may be some things that I am simply drawing a blank on."



I believe in God you obviously don't subscribe to any known form of God as you think all religions lack evidence, but what your telling me when you say that is you have more evidence for whatever it is you believe in.


The things I believe in are based upon the evidence true. If there is no evidence or very poor evidence then I simply don't believe/have any faith in them.

I feel like you're asking me if I believe in something for which there is no evidence which would really be the definition of faith in which case I can't think of anything like that which would falsify the premise of your OP that is why instead of arguing with you on the premise I said it would depend on your definition of faith.

As far as answering your questions I am not sure how to. I am not even sure what the questions are that is kind of murky. It looks to me as if you rigged things by default to be a belief in some creator though it is hard to tell.

Maybe you could rephrase your questions with numbers beside them as well that may clear some things up.

Thanks in advance.


edit on 4-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

Not being rude, but the point of this thread was not to discuss religion, but world views or your mental concept of what is "really real."

Basically what I feel I have heard from you is that the truth of reality cannot be known because each persons perspective of reality is a mental projection created by the occipital lobe.

The fact of the matter is we all perceive an external physical universe. If in your worldview that external universe is not one that is similar to that of those around again I would have to say that contradicts my experience .

Also why don't you enlighten us and give us the answers to those questions in the OP then?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

bottom line to my point is that facts are simply accepted matters of faith. The question becomes at what point we all draw the line between believing something and calling it fact. In the end we will learn that faith covers both believing and knowing. This is true for all religions including science.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




bottom line to my point is that facts are simply accepted matters of faith.


With that we either disagree or we agree that there are different levels of faith. As I stated there is faith in things which are evidence based and then there is blind faith (evidence be damned).




The question becomes at what point we all draw the line between believing something and calling it fact.


IMO that would be when something is repeatable, testable, and falsifiable and holds to consistent results.



In the end we will learn that faith covers both believing and knowing.


I will respectfully disagree.




This is true for all religions


Probably.



including science.


How so? Can you explain?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




I have faith in things backed up by evidence/facts


Ok so again for the third time you continue to avoid the questions in the OP...why?

If you have faith in things backed up by evidence lets take each of those questions and see if that is true of your world view.

Is there a Supreme being? You have answered No. So what is the reality then? No God and simply Matter? What evidence do you have to support this? Or do you put complete trust in that idea?




And just finished saying "I don't think I have blind faith in anything though there may be some things that I am simply drawing a blank on."


Again blind faith is silly. Who would want to believe in something with no evidence? So whenever you discuss faith with me its imperative you read it as complete trust when I write it otherwise you will misinterpret the meaning of my sentences. I am trying to determine if you have faith in things only backed up by evidence, but you refuse to respond to the questions in the OP because I think you know they will quickly show you either put your complete faith in yourself or other ideas that cannot be backed up by evidence. Now as I have said I put my faith in Christ. I think that is the most reliable person to put my faith in based on evidence not because I believe that blindly and its arrogant of you to assume that I blindly believe those things. I have not decided that you blindly believe whatever it is that you believe without first having a conversation with you, so why don't you extend me the same courtesy ?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
All of this amounts to a hill of beans.

I'd love to get on board with the conversation, but no one can ever tell me what we are talking about. How can I have faith in something no one can even explain?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




How so? Can you explain?


You live your life based on things you cannot show bring knowledge as understood in the classical sense. Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy will be able to explain to you much better than I why every action and belief is based on faith. Simply put inductive reasoning, the principle of uniformity of nature, and the laws of logic are all things a person who relies on any form of evidence must justify in order to claim their world view isnt based on faith but rather purely evidence.
edit on 4-1-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I do not want to steer too far away from the op but i will give you one simple reason that science is a religion and by your own line of reasoning in this thread you should agree with me.

Science fits the definition of religion.

I will not bother posting the definition here because the definitions of a religion are always changing. As a matter of fact the definitions have even changed a bit in the last couple weeks since i last looked but all in all the bottom line is that being a religion does not mean you have to have a central diety. Check out a couple of the definitions and see if science could be defined by any of those definitions.

That is not to sat that one can not better define science in other terms but that science does fit in the definition of religion. They are all matters of faith and science has changed and contridicted too much in the past to be considered complete.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheArrow

So basically you are telling me I cannot imagine a "creator of the universe" but thats entirely untrue. I can relate an external Supreme being to a Master Simulator and His Simulation. A being outside the system. That is not unfathomable and therefore is a legitimate philosophical concept. You have taken a very lazy approach and just like everyone else ignored the questions in the OP so that your own world view cannot be intellectually analyzed by other.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join