What's so great about faith?

[_Scottie]

And again, it's not faith that's needed to believe my wife has the feelings associated with giving love, it's trust. If I needed faith, it would be because there's no evidence for it.

Wrong. As I said before, the "evidence" of love can be faked. Therefore, since you can't completely trust the evidence, a certain amount of faith is required..

I've already said in this thread that I can't prove someone is having an internal feeling. (I can feel some hairsplitting coming on...) Let's apply what you've been saying about love to the other example people use to somehow give weight to this idea of faith: that people will drive on their own side of the road.

People are driving on their own side of the road. We see that every day. Do I know they want to drive on their side of the road? How do I know they aren't faking a desire to keep to their side of the road? I can't prove they feel good about keeping to their side of the road. Does that mean I need faith to believe they'll keep to their side of the road?

Of course not. I trust they want to keep to their side because there's a ton of evidence that people drive on their side all the time. The fact is, it's not really that important whether they want to or not; the fact that they act that way is the key. If they stopped acting that way, then it's a whole new ballgame, but as long as they're acting that way, my trust is well placed.

You are moving the goalposts here, Schmo. Methinks you don't have a good retort for the example of love, so you have to go back to the ridiculous example of driving on the wrong side of the road.

I agree that this analogy is an example of trust. The analogy of love that you are avoiding is an example of faith.

Sure we see acts of love, and we know love exists. The argument being made here is does YOUR partner love YOU? You claim that faith and religion are inextricably combined and there is no way anyone can make a case that faith is needed outside of religion. I think this shows a great example of faith in something besides God.

Let me say this one more time, and hopefully, if I say it a new way, people will begin to understand:

Faith and trust are synonymous in one respect, but they are not synonymous in another. It is in their distinguishing meanings that I am referring to the two words. It is not useful to conflate the meaning of faith as it is synonymous with trust with how the two words are different for the purposes of this discussion.

To review:

Faith: belief in the unknowable without evidence
Trust: belief in the unknowable with evidence

This is all well and good as long as the evidence is reliable. But what happens when you can't trust the evidence, as in the case with love? If the evidence can't be trusted, it's as if there is no evidence at all. This is where faith comes into play.

And, to say there isn't any evidence for God is just plain false. There is. You may interpret it these evidences as natural causes, where someone else may see the hand of God. How many times have you heard someone say that the miracle of life is directly from God. This is evidence. You may not like it. You may find it simplistic. But as long as others interpret something different than you, it is evidence and a true seeker of truth will acknowledge that.

Again, you might not see it as others do. You may see that a sperm and an egg collided and cells asexually reproduced to create a living being, but you can't see the hand of God anywhere. That is fine. It is just intellectually dishonest to say there isn't evidence.

Off topic...does anyone else find it ironic that Homer and Flanders are the ones arguing here?? :)

[_Nephi]

Off topic...does anyone else find it ironic that Homer and Flanders are the ones arguing here?? :)

Its funny, but Homer and Flanders argue all the time, so not exactly ironic. :P

What I find also interesting is that you and I are arguing the same side of the argument (for once). Someone must have hacked your account or something, cause I can't recall a time when we have done this before :P

To add to Scotties previous post, and to add some substance to his claim that your car driving analogy is not sufficient in this case, I suspect there is a far greater number of individuals who cheat on their spouses and yet hide this by "playing the part" then one's chances of a car darting across the road and killing you. Furthermore, there is a major vulnerability factor to consider in a relationship with a spouse than their is driving your car down the road. Granted, there is vulnerability in any situation that you are in, but you are far more open to emotional and physical hurt in a relationship than in a car.

[_Some Schmo]

You are moving the goalposts here, Schmo. Methinks you don't have a good retort for the example of love, so you have to go back to the ridiculous example of driving on the wrong side of the road.

I agree that this analogy is an example of trust. The analogy of love that you are avoiding is an example of faith.

No, I'd already exhausted the example of love, so I was trying to think of another way to express the same thing.

I said I couldn't prove the internal feeling, but loving acts are evidence of the feeling associated with love. But here's the million dollar question, and hopefully this will bring us back to my original point: What is the value in having faith, or trust, for that matter, that someone has those loving feelings for you? If they regularly demonstrate love, what difference does it really make? Why must you have that faith?

This is all well and good as long as the evidence is reliable. But what happens when you can't trust the evidence, as in the case with love? If the evidence can't be trusted, it's as if there is no evidence at all. This is where faith comes into play.

Why would you not trust the love evidence? Why is that any more unreliable than the evidence that people will drive on their side of the road? Yes, some people fake it, but most don't. Because some people don't have those feelings when they carry out seemingly loving acts, we shouldn't trust any evidence for anyone having them? That makes no sense.

And, to say there isn't any evidence for God is just plain false. There is. You may interpret it these evidences as natural causes, where someone else may see the hand of God. How many times have you heard someone say that the miracle of life is directly from God. This is evidence. You may not like it. You may find it simplistic. But as long as others interpret something different than you, it is evidence and a true seeker of truth will acknowledge that.

Again, you might not see it as others do. You may see that a sperm and an egg collided and cells asexually reproduced to create a living being, but you can't see the hand of God anywhere. That is fine. It is just intellectually dishonest to say there isn't evidence.

This is true. It is accurate to say there's no proof of god, but I suppose one could call natural occurrences evidence of god if one was so inclined. Point taken.

Off topic...does anyone else find it ironic that Homer and Flanders are the ones arguing here?? :)

That's pretty funny. I'm surprised you didn't use the term "evidence diddly devidence, neighborino." :)

[_Some Schmo]

Furthermore, there is a major vulnerability factor to consider in a relationship with a spouse than their is driving your car down the road. Granted, there is vulnerability in any situation that you are in, but you are far more open to emotional and physical hurt in a relationship than in a car.

Um... unless your wife is 600+ pounds, I think there's far more potential for physical hurt driving your car, my friend.

[_Scottie]

No, I'd already exhausted the example of love, so I was trying to think of another way to express the same thing.

I said I couldn't prove the internal feeling, but loving acts are evidence of the feeling associated with love. But here's the million dollar question, and hopefully this will bring us back to my original point: What is the value in having faith, or trust, for that matter, that someone has those loving feelings for you? If they regularly demonstrate love, what difference does it really make? Why must you have that faith?

Soooooo.....the love analogy had been done to death so lets go back to the wrong side of the road analogy, which had not only been done to death, but wasn't a valid argument in the first place?? Strange thinking there, Schmo...

As to your question, perhaps it's a mechanism designed to keep us sane. If we didn't have faith, we would live in a constant state of paranoia. Since I couldn't reliably ascertain that my wife really loved me based on the evidences that can be faked, I would be in a constant state of insanity.

Why would you not trust the love evidence? Why is that any more unreliable than the evidence that people will drive on their side of the road? Yes, some people fake it, but most don't. Because some people don't have those feelings when they carry out seemingly loving acts, we shouldn't trust any evidence for anyone having them? That makes no sense.

By your own definition, trust is believing with evidence, faith is believing without evidence. I think this is probably splitting hairs here, but your definition is kind of doing that anyways.

So, you are exactly right when you say we shouldn't trust any evidence. We need to have faith in the evidence.

That's pretty funny. I'm surprised you didn't use the term "evidence diddly devidence, neighborino." :)

LDWOL (That's Laugh Diddily Widdily Out Loud)

[_Some Schmo]

No, I'd already exhausted the example of love, so I was trying to think of another way to express the same thing.

I said I couldn't prove the internal feeling, but loving acts are evidence of the feeling associated with love. But here's the million dollar question, and hopefully this will bring us back to my original point: What is the value in having faith, or trust, for that matter, that someone has those loving feelings for you? If they regularly demonstrate love, what difference does it really make? Why must you have that faith?

Soooooo.....the love analogy had been done to death so lets go back to the wrong side of the road analogy, which had not only been done to death, but wasn't a valid argument in the first place?? Strange thinking there, Schmo...

As to your question, perhaps it's a mechanism designed to keep us sane. If we didn't have faith, we would live in a constant state of paranoia. Since I couldn't reliably ascertain that my wife really loved me based on the evidences that can be faked, I would be in a constant state of insanity.

Dude, we seem to be talking past each other. I could totally buy your last comment if it were worded, "As to your question, perhaps it's a mechanism designed to keep us sane. If we didn't have trust, we would live in a constant state of paranoia." Again, faith = not necessary.

But you still don't really get it. You put all your regard for the validity of your relationship with your wife on how she feels rather than how she acts. That is simply amazing to me.

Why would you not trust the love evidence? Why is that any more unreliable than the evidence that people will drive on their side of the road? Yes, some people fake it, but most don't. Because some people don't have those feelings when they carry out seemingly loving acts, we shouldn't trust any evidence for anyone having them? That makes no sense.

By your own definition, trust is believing with evidence, faith is believing without evidence. I think this is probably splitting hairs here, but your definition is kind of doing that anyways.

So, you are exactly right when you say we shouldn't trust any evidence. We need to have faith in the evidence.

But I specifically did not say that we shouldn't trust any evidence. I have essentially been saying the opposite all along. Not sure how you interpreted it that way.

[_Scottie]

Dude, we seem to be talking past each other. I could totally buy your last comment if it were worded, "As to your question, perhaps it's a mechanism designed to keep us sane. If we didn't have trust, we would live in a constant state of paranoia." Again, faith = not necessary.

You're going outside your own definitions!! How can you say that it is trust? By your own definitions, love=faith!!

But you still don't really get it. You put all your regard for the validity of your relationship with your wife on how she feels rather than how she acts. That is simply amazing to me.

I'm simply trying to abide by the way you have defined your version of trust vs faith. Since the way she acts can be faked, and the evidence is unreliable, we have to have faith that she really feels the way she does. Your own definition of trust doesn't fit here.

But I specifically did not say that we shouldn't trust any evidence. I have essentially been saying the opposite all along. Not sure how you interpreted it that way.

I know what you have been saying. But you keep disregarding your own definitions. You seem to want to force them to fit where they don't belong.

Again, I'll reiterate my point. Since the evidence that someone loves you can be faked, it is not reliable evidence. By your own definition, trust is believing something with evidence, faith is believing something without evidence. Since the evidence for love can be faked, it is basically useless. Therefore, by your own definition, it has now been redefined as faith.

Got it?

[_Some Schmo]

Dude, I am not "going outside my own definitions." What you seem to fail to understand is that just because the evidence of loving feelings does not necessarily indicate the person is experiencing loving feelings, it does not automatically invalidate all love feeling evidence. Love feeling evidence is still there. I tried to point this out before, but you seemed to overlook it.

If the evidence is there, then you have evidence.
If there is no evidence, then you have no evidence.

trust = evidence
faith = no evidence

[_Scottie]

Earlier, you agreed that we have evidence for God. So, has faith in God now turned to trust in God, since we DO have evidence?

By your definitions, it should now be label trust instead of faith.

[_Some Schmo]

Earlier, you agreed that we have evidence for God. So, has faith in God now turned to trust in God, since we DO have evidence?

By your definitions, it should now be label trust instead of faith.

Earlier, I was agreeing that people could interpret certain things as evidence of god, but I was in no way agreeing that it was, in fact, evidence of god.