Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:23 pm

Your analogy doesn't work. I think you know it, but you refuse to admit it.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Stormbringer
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:36 am

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Stormbringer » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:45 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:23 am
Stormbringer wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:52 am
Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Merriam-Webster offers several definitions, one being a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Both of these agree.

But the question is whether faith is a reliable path to truth. I don't think that's a fair question.
Why don't you think it is a fair question? It either is a reliable path to truth or it isn't. I think that by many POV it sucks.
That's what I was trying to explain in my last post. Just having faith in something, really anything, doesn't necessarily lead to the truth. The mechanism you trust may be able to reveal the truth about something, but it's no guarantee. Ronald Reagan used to say "trust but verify", which I consider to be an oxymoron (if you trust someone, then verification displays a last of trust). But I would go one step more, verify everything you can with whatever means you can, at least when such things are important.
Anything can happen...

User avatar
Stormbringer
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:36 am

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Stormbringer » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:49 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:54 am
I think that about sums it up. Scepticism is always selective but I would hope reason and passion could learn to co-operate.
That is not true. Skepticism is not always selective and you would have a difficult time proving such a thing. You may have that impression based on someone you've encountered, but it is simply not true for every skeptic and every act of skepticism.
Anything can happen...

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Claire » Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:32 pm

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Water and God are similar in that both exist in three distinct states separately at the same time. Why doesn't that work?
Research trinity. We are done.
Apparently, you have a different understanding of the Trinity, but I think you do see how the analogy does work based on my perspective, yet you refuse to admit it.
SEG wrote:Your analogy doesn't work. I think you know it, but you refuse to admit it.
Your copying me, and saying my analogy doesn't work without an explanation as to why, just reinforces what I said about you.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:38 pm

We are done
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Claire » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:48 pm

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Water and God are similar in that both exist in three distinct states separately at the same time. Why doesn't that work?
Research trinity. We are done.
Apparently, you have a different understanding of the Trinity, but I think you do see how the analogy does work based on my perspective, yet you refuse to admit it.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Your analogy doesn't work. I think you know it, but you refuse to admit it.
Your copying me, and saying my analogy doesn't work without an explanation as to why, just reinforces what I said about you.
We are done
You are done because all you have is an empty claim, and a pride so strong you refuse to admit I'm right.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:13 pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:49 pm
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:54 am
I think that about sums it up. Scepticism is always selective but I would hope reason and passion could learn to co-operate.
That is not true. Skepticism is not always selective and you would have a difficult time proving such a thing. You may have that impression based on someone you've encountered, but it is simply not true for every skeptic and every act of skepticism.
I could not prove this but a case for it which I find compelling is made in Wittgenstein's last work: On Certainty. He points out that in order to doubt anything we have to accept something else as true. We need paradigm cases of sure knowledge in order to contrast with the dubious cases. We need systems to prove things and these systems cannot themselves be proved, for to prove them we would need meta-systems to prove the systems and meta-meta-systems to prove the meta-systems. One alternative to this is foundationalism which says there are common foundations of knowledge, such as Aristotelian logic which all humans have to accept. I don't buy that because some people do not accept that logic (certain schools of Buddhism for example, or some schools of mathematics reject some parts of this logic in some contexts). So I accept his view that we are always selective in our scepticism. In this case I thought the cap was applying a level of scepticism to Christian doctrine he would not apply to things like Maths or Science or in daily life.
https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/wit ... tainty.pdf
341. That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn.
342. That is to say, it belongs to the logic of our scientific investigations that certain things are in deed not doubted.
343. But it isn't that the situation is like this: We just can't investigate everything, and for that reason we are forced to rest content with assumption. If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put.
344. My life consists in my being content to accept many things.
345. If I ask someone "what colour do you see at the moment?", in order, that is, to learn what colour is there at the moment, I cannot at the same time question whether the person I ask understands English, whether he wants to take me in, whether my own memory is not leaving me in the lurch as to the names of colours, and so on.
346. When I am trying to mate someone in chess, I cannot have doubts about the pieces perhaps changing places of themselves and my memory simultaneously playing tricks on me so that I don't notice.
On the matter of the incarnation I had said the fathers did grasp classical logic and were not making mistakes. For them there was no problem in saying Jesus was omniscient and also limited in knowledge because he would be omniscient as God and limited as man. The article the Cap quotes began by saying there are apparent contradictions in being both omniscient and not omniscient and then discusses ways modern philosophers have tried to resolve these. I think the reasons the moderns see these problems and focus on them, are in fact taking this scepticism into account, is I would think because they presuppose a more or less Cartesian theory of mind, that is to say they assume that the core of the person is unified individual awareness, so that if there is more than one awareness there cannot be unity of person. The ancients don't seem to think in that way. Augustine seems to have been one of the most self-aware people of his age and yet he describes the persons of the trinity using the Aristotelian category of relations; he does not see the persons as individuals in the modern sense. So these modern philosophers tend to start from the post Cartesian concept of the self; that is something they are not sceptical about; maybe they should be.

By the way I am a great fan of Michael Moorcock and especially Elric. I did once hint to Moorcock that Elric was a Christ figure; I like to think he saw the irony.

captain howdy
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by captain howdy » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:56 am

Why Moonwood T. Hare, are you flirting with me?

captain howdy
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by captain howdy » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:19 am

Stormbringer wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:49 pm
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:54 am
I think that about sums it up. Scepticism is always selective but I would hope reason and passion could learn to co-operate.
That is not true. Skepticism is not always selective and you would have a difficult time proving such a thing. You may have that impression based on someone you've encountered, but it is simply not true for every skeptic and every act of skepticism.

Sorry, a little humor there (above)--I'm a bit of a smartass. Re: Moon's main complaint that I am applying undue skepticism to Christian claims I guess the best response is: You decide. To me, Moon's response is a tacit admission that he cannot in fact disentangle incarnation doctrine from the law of non-contradiction. Which in fact he cannot.

To me, what's weird is that he even tries. (You can learn a lot from him, if you haven't picked up on that already.) Christianity traffics in revealed truth. How you supposed to use aristotelian logic to ascertain the truth or falseness of the ten commandments, for instance?


Anyway, welcome to the forum if I haven't said so already!

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG » Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:59 am

Stormbringer wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:45 pm
That's what I was trying to explain in my last post. Just having faith in something, really anything, doesn't necessarily lead to the truth. The mechanism you trust may be able to reveal the truth about something, but it's no guarantee.
I agree. That's why it's a poor mechanism to rely upon, especially if it is the only mechanism that you are using to get to the truth. The faith that Christians rely upon about their belief in their god is generally a cop out when they haven't sufficient evidence to justify their beliefs.

Can you justify any belief by using faith as a mechanism? For example could you use faith to back up your belief that white people are of superior intelligence to blacks?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply