« more discussions

• 

  Is It Possible To Believe Anything Without Faith?

  I've been arguing with friends (both atheist and Christian) about whether it is possible to believe anything without faith? I think it is possible to believe some simple truths without using faith (belief without evidence). But here are the two arguments I'm running against.
  
  1 - In order to argue anything with logic, you have to assume things first. The simplest logical argument - 1) A = B, 2) B = C, thus 3) A = C - requires faith to assume presuppositions (1) and (2) before you can come to the conclusion of (3). Thus, it is impossible to argue anything logically without first assuming (without evidence) a few things first. This requires a certain amount of faith.
  
  I have some idea that this is wrong. But how?
  
  2 - If everything is randomnly caused by a chaotic universe, then utlimately all my thoughts are simply chemical reactions and synapses firing in my brain responding to my outside environment. If every thought, including this one, is simply chemicals responding to outside stimuli, how can I believe anything is true without a certain amount of blind faith?
  
  Another argument that there should be an answer for, right?

  JPurves started this discussion 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  tinab 

  In my opinion, faith comes in all different forms. I have faith that my husband will come home from work today, just because it's been proven over and over again that he does. But he may get into an accident or something, so I can't say for sure.
  But to believe in a god, burning bushes, walking on water, rising from the dead, etc. it requires faith to believe that because you have never seen it happen.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 3 replies

  • 

    JPurves 

    I agree. One form of Faith can be based on blindness and no logic. Another form of faith can be based on a certain amount of logical evidence. But even that is still faith!
    
    What I'm wondering is is it possible to believe ANYTHING without some amount of faith???

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Jassafari 

    I see that faith....
    
    in this group is often mentioned. I have a question, well, actually a couple, no, a few of them. But I will ask this one first. And as we go along, and get the answer, or the answers to the one....then, I will go to question to question. With all that said and done: "What is faith? Can anyone answer that for me?
    
    And please, can this forum, or group not answer this question from the biblical text? Just a straight answer...."What Is Faith?
    
    JASS!

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Justin M 

    What is faith...eh.
    Dictionary.com (I don't have any other dictionary with me) defines faith as
    
    belief that is not based on proof
    
    belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
    
    I suppose the dictionary is kind of sacred but it's still a straight answer.

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  krispy3d 

  Regarding #1, presuppositions and assumptions that determine logical discourse are not "beliefs without evidence." Of course most people don't take the time to study just why logic is "true," but it doesn't require faith to bridge the gap between that ignorance and knowledge; any book on philosophy or logic systems will do a fine job explaining it without requiring a leap of faith.
  
  Regarding #2, a quick glance around will assure you that the world is not as chaotic and disordered as some say. I mean, you're sitting there as a conglomeration of bits and pieces working in perfect harmony to create complex life, and that requires some serious order. Thus, your thoughts, while they can be reduced to the basic components of neurology, are based on evidence and "true" physical interactions between "true" neuropsychological elements, all in an ordered and predictable way. I suppose one could argue that humans are essentially and inevitably biased and not privy to all things knowable thus must rely on faith, but I say just because one may be relying on faith as a result of ignorance, doesn't mean that what they don't know is unknowable or unprovable. In this way, then, faith is belief without the possibility of evidence, not merely believing in something you're not sure is true or not because of a lack of knowledge.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  madhurvarshney 

  You do need faith ( or trust ) to beleive anything .
  But the faith has to be backed up by evidence and experience.
  The trouble begins with blind faith - one that is not based upon anything but prejudices , which is not consistent with logic and might not be analysable

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  martimr1 

  I think that you've got the right idea but the wrong premise on #1. Goedel's theorem states that every logical system is either incomplete or inconsistent. This implies that not only do you have to choose your premises, but that there will always be some assertions that reason declares to be both true and false, or (depending on your choice of premises) some assertions that cannot be proven at all. So logic is a shaky foundation to build beliefs upon, overall.
  
  There is a better foundation available to us, however, which is empirical observation and the scientific method, which basically means that if you can control the circumstances under which you make observations, and then repeatably obtain the same result, then you are safe in "believing" in that result. That is nice and solid, but you have to be careful in taking it too far.
  
  Here's an example of what I mean by taking it too far. Both mathematical logic and repeatable scientific observations predict the existence of the subatomic particle designated a "Quark." Nobody has ever seen a quark, and if the same "laws" of physics that predict the quark are accurate, nobody ever will. And we can't really say whether quarks are "real" or whether they are just a fiction that allows us to model the behavior of the subatomic universe predictably.
  
  Now, science (philosophy?) of general semantics tells us that we can't ever directly experience the universe anyway. Our minds are always operating at least one level of abstraction away from "reality," whatever it is. When you look at it that way, we are taking EVERYTHING we perceive about the world on "blind faith." Again, the only thing we DON'T have to take on faith is what is repeatable. Newton didn't know WHY the apple fell from the tree - and we still have at best a shaky understanding of gravity - but by Jingo, he knew that another apple would fall again tomorrow.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 3 replies

  • 

    JPurves 

    So, there are some things people believe by "blind faith." There are other things people believe still by faith, but based on some evidence and observation.
    
    martimr1 said "there will always be some assertions that reason declares to be both true and false" depending on the premises. What do you guys think the enlightenment philosophers like John Locke were talking about when they mentioned "self evident truths"?
    
    Empirical observation and the scientific method is one of the best foundations we have for gaining knowledge. But it is impossible to use the scientific method without the use of logical presuppositions. Studying what is repeatable is very practical and useful for gaining knowledge, but there are a lot of basic things in philosophy that are not repeatable.
    
    What if it could be possible to use "self evident truths" as a beginning for reasoning. I think a self-evident truth is something that is necessarily true without proof or evidence. In other words, by definition, it must be true. Simple statements like "reality is knowable" and "reason is reliable" almost have to be true by definition. I can try to use reason to argue that reason is unreliable but then I would have to use reason to argue rendering everything I said meaningless. I could try to argue against the truth that reality is knowable, but if absolutely no amount of reality is knowable, then my arguments about reality seem to become babbling nonsense.
    
    Instead of using faith for the two first presuppositions of the most basic logical argument (A = B, and B = C). Couldn't I use self-evident truths that I do not have to merely assume beforehand, and then build a rational belief system from there? Logical deduction based first on self-evident truths?

    posted 12 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    martimr1 

    While there may be "self-evident" truths, JPurves, your two assertions "reality is knowable" and "reason is reliable" are certainly NOT among them, and in fact I would say that both assertions are certailnly FALSE. Hayakawa, a semantician that you can find on my bookshelf, argues persuasively that reality is NEVER knowable. Further, "reason" is seldom reliable, largely because people think in symbolic abstractions that only approximately behave like the postulated "reality" they are intended to represent. This accounts for how two demonstrably capable, intelligent people can reason from the same set of empirical observations and reach entirely different conclusions. Example: me and Dick Cheney.

    posted 12 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    jhaven 

    jpurves
    I would change the following words:
    1) Use "assumptions" instead of "faith" - the word faith is too loaded.
    2) Use "know" instead of "believe" - you are asking what can be known, not simply believed.
    
    Therefore the question is: Is it possible to know somehting without assumptions? I would say no, we must use assumptions in order to know - but that does not make what we know less reliable or knowable.
    
    martimr
    Everyone bases their life on the assumptions (self-evident truths) "reality is knowable" and "reason is reliable" in order to function. We assume that our future reality will be consistent with our past reality - e.g. gravity is going to work today.
    
    You may disagree with the validity of the statements, yet you use them with every action you take. This is how you can read Hayakawa, understand what he says, and choose to believe it.
    
    Arguing that reality is not knowable because people come to different conclusions about complex, abstract concepts (e.g. socio-political ideas) does nothing to disprove the knowability or reliability of basic reality (e.g. gravity). While you and VP Cheney disagree on politics, I doubt either of you is worried that you are going to float into the air at any moment.

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  deactivated member 

  I don't think it's that complicated. I believe in lots of things, just not the imaginary friend in the sky (who is often quite a dickhead anyway). I believe in the potential of humanity to achieve incredible things, both good and bad. My novel, Bones of The Dead, has a humanist premise that Kirkus described like this:
  
  "Newmark’s brisk and tightly knit picaresque…pokes a sharp stick in the eye of uncritical religious belief while serving as a Slow Food manifesto and extended culinary metaphor. What the much-sought book actually holds, in the guise of recipes, is knowledge: of the beauty of humanity and divinity of every soul on earth, of the openness, the humanness, of “all those teachers in sandals.” But Newmark’s work is more than a screed against the schemers and merchants of greed…It is a clutching story, with love interests and court shenanigans, odd fellows and weird sisters, lurking in wait for their stage entrance, scenes of comic hilarity around the dinner table, and a high spirited tribute to the fruits of knowledge…"
  
  Why is faith applied only to a belief in that elusive bad boy in the sky? I believe in life, in myself, in art, in love, in the human capacity to astound. I believe it even when I dont always see it. Isn't that faith?

  posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    jhaven 

    I don't think jpurves meant faith the way you reference it. You seem to be referring to emotive beliefs based on personal preferences and lifestyle choices.
    
    I think jpurves was asking can we ever KNOW something without using ASSUMPTIONS (something which is not 100% verifiable). The question thus isn't "Can you BELIEVE in art, love, life, etc without FAITH?" but "Can you KNOW your book exists without any ASSUMPTIONS?"
    
    Is this correct jpurves?

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    JPurves 

    anauthor - yes, that's faith - In fact, you can believe ANYTHING with faith. I can use faith to believe I can fly, soar and touch the sky. However, that was not what I asked.
    
    jhaven - I used the word "believe" because you cannot know anything for sure if you are using faith. I used the word "faith" as meaning "belief without evidence or proof." And I keep running into people telling me that I can't know anything because every argument requires assumptions. Just assuming assumptions beforehand is faith. There is a difference between believing an assumption in order to reason, and using a self-evident truth to begin reasoning from. Perhaps it would be better to ask if it is possible to know anything without assumptions. Yes - if you use self-evident truths. If I ever become an atheist, it will be because of a reliance on logic and being able to know that certain facts are true. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW I COULD BE AN ATHEIST WITHOUT DOING THIS - just an agnostic perhaps?
    
    martimr1 - if "reality is knowable" and "reason is reliable" are not self-evident truths, then we'd be pretty hard pressed to find any truths that necessarily must be true - Yes, people use logic/reason to come up with different conclusions, but some people use logic WRONG - in other words, they make a mis-step with a logical fallacy. Just because I made a mistake in my multiplication table does not mean the laws of mathematics are not reliable. The laws of logic, like the laws of mathematics, have to be reliable - or it is meaningless babbling nonsense to make any argument at all - even the argument that reason is not reliable.

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  randem 

  1. The "simple logical argument" as you refer to it, of 1)A=B, and 2)B=C, does not require any faith whatsoever. In the form in which it is presented, (1) and (2) are "givens". They are pre-stated facts for the purpose of solving (3)A=C.
  
  If it's a matter of proving whether (1) or (2) are indeed facts, here's the simple conclusion: Our system of mathematics is a human invention. It starts with the ability to quantify things known to exists; in other words, to count. From there, we added observed laws about the mathematical operations (adding, subtracting, etc) that can be applied to known quantities. These things are laws... facts... but they're still based on that man-made system called numbers.
  
  If someone wants to rule out numbers and counting because they're "man-made" and they "require faith", then those same people have to rule out language, and words, and definitions on the same basis, and therefore, their "assumptions" about "god" based on words written in books are subject to far greater ridicule than any logical problem.
  
  2. The answer is in the question. You stated that "if everything is randomnly caused by a chaotic universe, then utlimately all my thoughts are simply chemical reactions", but the former does not lead, logically, to the latter. Yes, thoughts are chemical reactions. But reactions are a form of order. Furthermore, it is not accurate to say that "everything" is randomly caused by a chaotic universe.

  posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Jassafari 

  Sure it is....
  
  especially when one is an atheist....For example, it does not take much faith, to believe in something that does not exist! Does it? I mean, just think about it,
  GOD doesn't exists. See, it's over, it a open and shut case, but is it? But being
  serious....When one states that he or she, does not in fact believe in GOD,
  
  because they call HIM by name....are they truly atheistic? for example, one might say, "God does not exist. but does HE GOD, truly not exist, because one believes that HE does not? And if HE doesnot, then how and where does one find the bibliography to support such a theory?
  
  Now, what I am doing now, is simply expressing a thought. Please, and I mean this from the very Axsis that my life springs from. Bsides, I have too, way too much respect for the young woman, that's the admin of this very interesting, yet debatable group! So, even though it may appear to be, I am in no way
  
  attempting to be funny, and or meaning any disrespect in any way. Besides, Like
  GOD, or like any human with a conscience....I understand, and respect the right of choice!
  
  PEACE!
  
  JASS!

  posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  show 1 reply

  • 

    Justin M 

    That argument is flawed, Jassafari. Are you suggesting that we are lying when we say that we are atheists? Of course you're not but you can see that it is completely contradictory.
    
    It's just like saying I do not believe in SANTA. I am calling HIM by HIS name yet I don't believe HE exists. I have to specify what I don't believe exxists. Anyway, I prefer to say that I don't believe in a god. Saying 'God' points more towards the Christian faith.
    
    It's hard to give up something you've believed in your whole life. It's really hard.
    
    Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Jassafari. It's alright to try to be funny. Maybe not so often here in our heated debates but it might lighten the conversation a bit. :)
    
    

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Jassafari (edited)

  Justin M....
  
  believe you me, I wasn't trying to be funny. For example, your statement, "Like I believe in Santa....well, Santa actually existed. He was a Muslim, and no, I am not
  joking. He used to give to the kids in his village, the ones that were extremely poor. If you know anything about Muslims, they are in fact, a very proud peoples.
  
  So, in order to give to them, he had to resort to doing so in the evenings, and on days that reflected holy days....If you would like, i would send the info
  over to you....but I would need your private e-mail address to do so. But please,
  do not speak for me, or put words into my mouth! I never intended for
  
  my post, anyone of them....to appear funny.....or facetious! But thanx for your
  response....I appreciate any and all responses....looking forward to talking to you again in the very near future! In conclusion, it's a perfect example of what I said in the other post. Just because you feel, think, or believe
  
  something, does not mean that you are correct! In this case, you are not....for
  Santa, and/or the concept of where we got the Santa theory....is in fact an
  absolute....Now, I deal mainly in the law of absolutes....and many of you, are in
  fact not familiar with that law! You have been dabbling in the law of
  
  opposites so feverishly, that many of you do not believe the facts. Lets take for example, perfection....may of you in this forum, would say, and believe that
  you are accurate when you say, Nobodies perfect....when in fact, the law of
  opposites, or the law of reciprocols say other wise.
  
  Let me explain....You undesrstand that law right? You know, up/down, GOD / devil, good /bad ect. But let me ask you this....how is it, that we understand an opposite? Is it because we just know it? No, that's foolish to think that way.
  But we understand an opposite, simply by it's recipocal. For we do not
  
  understand up, simply because we understand it. We understand it because we understand it's opposite. You know, because down is it's definative verb. The same with East, or West, or any thing that has an opposite, and unless you haven't noticed....just about everything in the english language, and any other
  
  language does. Besides, a far as perfection goes, their are things that are perfect, even human beings....Because in understanding the law of opposites, we have to understand it's first priciple, which is....everythig in existance has
  an opposite. therefore, if there were no perfection, as many states....
  
  then there can be no imperfection either. As a matter of fact, there's perfection in imperfection itself....If you doubt that, just removed the im....and what
  remains? Okay....I'll end now, but just wanted to drop food for thought!
  
  JASS!

  posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  show 4 replies

  • 

    Justin M 

    I know you weren't trying to be funny. What I was trying to say was that it is alright to make a joke every now and then in these forums. But that's not what you meant, right? Did you mean making a joke out of it? As in making fun of it?
    
    Oops, I picked a bad example. I know there was a person called saint nicholas and all the santa information. Maybe the tooth fairy would be a better example. But anyway, my point reamins the same. Just because I name the thing I don't believe in doesn't mean I believe it exists. See, they contradict each other.
    
    And I didn't mean to be hostile. We can all be friendly because if we're not we're not going to get anywhere in our debates...or conversations. :)

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Jassafari (edited)

    Hey Justin....
    
    Man, you are mistaken in many of the things that you have said, let me explain...
    take for example, your statement concerning the Chrisian faith....Well, in actuality
    there is no such thing as that! In the book of Acts, it is mentioned that the believers were first called christian, in a city called Antioch.
    
    My friend, I have heard so many things concerning that statement, and what it means. Oh it means this in Hebrew, oh, it means this in the Greek. Well, that's
    funny because the language of the folk in Antioch were niether Hebrew or Greek.
    As a matter of record, the language, that accurately defines that statement,
    
    and what it means, is Actually Turkish! Seeing the the city was on the Turkish
    border, and they were syrians....But the term was not a good one, and it was definately not meant to be used as a name one would call themselves. Because in reality, it was a derrogatory statement....Much like the words Honkey or
    
    Nigga's. You must understand the period of thought there at the time the statement was made! These folks hated Jesus, whose real name is Yeshua!
    and they hated anyone, or thing that stood for HIM....Kinda like the Atheist.
    But that's a horse of another color, or should I say, another topic in itself!
    
    In conclusion, so you see the error of speaking without knowledge....For that, and that alone is the reason why there are so many religions....Including
    Atheisim....It too is a religion....But please, before you start one of those heated debates that I was so duely warned....Lets take into consideration what the
    
    number one definition for religion is....You know, like he's religiously standing on this corner....or, he's always doing this.
    
    JASS!

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Jassafari (edited)

    Justin, Please, lighten up....
    
    I know that you didn't think I was being funny, because this is about the 3rd time that you have said it now. And please, know this little brother, I am not trying to be anything other than who and what I am! A lover of you....Number
    one....because I like your fire! and two....an enjoer of life! As for saying something and not meaning they exists....
    
    Perhaps you may want to choose another way to express that point! because, whether you are aware of it or not....we can only use the name of something when it exists....and whenever we say that word....like GOD! or any other name of a particlar people, place or thing....
    
    We are giving it meaningful existance. Okay, I'll admit....perhaps you may not be aware that it exists, as you were not aware of Santa....and no! I am not talking about the German side of the story....I am talking about a muslim preist....
    and his name was not Klaus, or Nicholas....
    
    Like I said, perhaps you would like to read the article....and learn the absolute truth!
    
    But, maybe not. as for being hostle....sir, we are having a debate....Hostle,
    is nt the term I would use. However, for the most accurate explaination of that we are doing....well, I'll take a page out of your book....Heated!
    
    (SMILE!)
    
    with Much Love for you my Brother!
    
    Like a good friend of mine once said....I do mean Peace not this (WAR!) that friend is none other than James Marshall Hendrix....Known to you, as Jimi!
    
    PEACE again
    
    JASS!

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Justin M 

    Jass, please don't tale my comments so literally. My point still remains the same. I know it sounds weird, but your facts about what a Christian is and all the rest stray from the real argument.
    
    I can admit that I may be wrong with some historical facts. It doesn't mean that my thoughts are wrong.
    
    Don't say that atheist hate 'Jesus' and his followers. I do not hate people because of their beliefs and the fact that you could even suggest such a thing is very insulting. The meaning of the word doesn't state that atheists must hate every religious person. Hate is much more prominent between religions.
    
    Go ahead and say that atheism is a religion. The truth is we don't assemble and pray to our fictional characters, we don't kill people in the name of a supernatural being and we don't hate people because they DO believe. Oh, and most religious people belive every other religion is wrong. The only difference with us is that we believe that they are all wrong.
    
    To put it simply, the atheist cause has been a lot less bloodier than the religious one.

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Jonas D 

  OK, for 1. There is no need for faith. The reasoning that IF (A=B and B=C) THEN A=C is correct whether A=B and B=C is true or not. We do not care about if they are true or not (that is why we call them A and B)
  2. I do not follow your argument here, where does the blind faith come in ? In believing that the random forces can produce correct statements ? Well, I guess that that belief comes from experience , and that my reasoning can lead to useful predictions about my environment.
  
  In any case, we all use our assumptions when dealing with the world, which for convenience we treat as undoubted facts. But ideally we keep an eye open for signs that these assumptions are faulty. After all, atheist does not mean without beliefs, but without beliefs in gods...

  posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  uplandpoet 

  I think you have to have what i like to call functional faith. that is to say, i believe the earth is basically round, but if we were to get new evidence to suggest it isnt, i would be open to that. for now, from the space photos and other scientific information, it works to consider it so. the difference is whether i become emotionally and intellectually invested in the belief. i believ ein global warming, i believe in molecular structure and string theory, maybe even super string theory, but i am quite open to these beliefs being replaced with better, more workable theories. i am open to their being an ultimate creator, though i have yet to see any evidence that sways me to believe or disbelieve such notion. i certainly share justin's perspective that i am not interested in killing my fellow man because he does or does not believe in a creator or because he believes in the "wrong creator"
  
  So faith is a must on a working level, but on a core belief type faith, i think it is not needed at all. i am still prepared to be persuaded that the universe does not exist, but i still get in my car and drive around in my small corner of it. or at least i believe that is what i do:)

  posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

• To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top