Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

so is there a difference between the two or are they one and the same?

Originally posted by Sado22
so is there a difference between the two or are they one and the same?

There is a difference. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I have seen it before, and I understand how the Earth rotating works to make the sun come up in the morning. Blind faith is to believe in something with no evidence or understanding. Like having faith that big foot is blue, would be blind faith.

A philosopher I read once broek it into 3 categories (paraphrased below):

1. Faith that stands even in the face of evidence. Fanaticism would fall into this category.
2. Faith in something that we have no hard evidence for or against. Most mainstream religious faith would be interpreted this way.
3. Faith based upon probabilities. What shakya was talking about. I have faith that a dinner I order at a restaurant isn't poisoned, for example.

...

I like the distinctions. I think they work well to describe the phenomenon that is "faith".

As does the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster.

When dealing with theology facts play a rather minor role. Thus the first category is rarely applicable

Originally posted by backdoorman
As does the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster.

When dealing with theology facts play a rather minor role. Thus the first category is rarely applicable

Only to those ignorant of theology.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I have seen it before, and I understand how the Earth rotating works to make the sun come up in the morning.

This is not faith, but inference.




Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blind faith is to believe in something with no evidence or understanding. Like having faith that big foot is blue, would be blind faith.

Faith is any belief that is not based on material evidence.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is not faith, but inference...

To me, it is the only real faith. My belief in Buddhism is because I have seen how the practice has given me the tools to better my own life. That equates to faith to continue in my Buddhist practice.

Originally posted by Alliance
Only to those ignorant of theology.
Can anyone give a convincing argument based on facts in favor of any religion?
Nearly all the time facts are used against religion, but it's futile because theists believe they have divinity in their side so they just shrug it off and quote the bible.

Can you please explain how fact contradicts religion?

Originally posted by Alliance
Can you please explain how fact contradicts religion?
I never said that, you idiot. I said they are usually used against religions (e.g. by attacking Bible stories.).

Originally posted by backdoorman
facts are used against religion

Refresh your memory?

So how does attacking scripture undermine religion?

Not religion in general but the faith that espouses those scriptures, at least those who believe the particular scripture to be the infallible word of god.

Do you disagree or do you just not like me?

I think you made a stupid comment.

Facts play an exceedingly important role in theology, and religion, and in scripture. These words are NOT interchangeable.

In Christian scripture, I doubt you think that there was not a land called Cannan, or the city of Jeruselem, or a nation called Egypt. Facts in scripture provide the backdrop for the mythology, putting it in the context of our world and helping us to understand its message.

Religion is not fundamentalism and does not believe in the inerrancy of its scriptures. In Christianity, St. Augustine himself established precedents for interpreting the Bible and resolving its contradictions. Thus, fact, does not change religion.

In theology, the study of religion, facts play a major role, as the study itself is based upon the combination of the history of religion, its people, and its scripture.

In short, with screaming exclusivity to Christianity, you are seeming to construct a religion, rather than actually interpret what it is. You see the abortion clinic bombing, but don't see the Vatican Council endorsing evolution. You see the parent throwing their homosexual child out of the home, but don't see the minister sanctioning a gay marriage. You've simply constructed a religion that you project on all others, with complete disregard for the diversity and plurality of that religion. Then you claim to hate it and make outrageous claims like "they disregard fact."

Originally posted by backdoorman
I never said that, you idiot. I said they are usually used against religions (e.g. by attacking Bible stories.). Originally posted by Alliance
Refresh your memory?

So how does attacking scripture undermine religion? Haha, that's kinda funny.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Faith is any belief that is not based on material evidence.

indeed

I do not think that the idea being symbolized by the term "faith" accuratly describes conclusions based on evidence.

How important would it be to "keep faith" if it was demonstrable?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is not faith, but inference.






Faith is any belief that is not based on material evidence.

id like to make a small correction{if u dont mind} in the first statement. in formal logic, inferences{or stating facts} only work in the present and for the past. you can only really say that so n so even happened since x time till now with 100% assurity. you can NOT use it to say that the event will also KEEP ON HAPPENING, at some basic level, that is faith. based on high probability.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
id like to make a small correction{if u dont mind} in the first statement. in formal logic, inferences{or stating facts} only work in the present and for the past. you can only really say that so n so even happened since x time till now with 100% assurity. you can NOT use it to say that the event will also KEEP ON HAPPENING, at some basic level, that is faith. based on high probability.

you would be correct if we percieved things which did not follow from other things and events without cause.

no inference or prediction is 100% accurate by definition. It is not faith given that probability is demonstrable and does not need to be relied upon without evidence.

You are assuming that for someone to "think" something, they do it with absolute confidence, or that to infer something (as opposed to having faith in it) it must also be 100% accurate.

The accuracy of an idea does not make it more or less of a "faith". Evidence to support an idea makes it an inference (if not the term I would use) whereas having a belief with no direct evidence is faith.

Good thing I never said all theists maniacally hold the Bible as the ultimate literal truth from God.


Actually I may have been wrong in using the word "theology" in my original post, you were right (I suppose it is bound to happen from time to time) I was using it interchangeably with religion.


That's a bullshit and unfounded claim, a sorry attempt at making me seem like an atheist foaming at the mouth on a crusade against Christianity. In any case, is "screaming exclusivity to Christianity" a bad thing? Regardless, that was hardly what I was doing, replace the word Bible (which I used twice) with Koran or Torah and you get the same results.


K.

Originally posted by Alliance


In Christian scripture, I doubt you think that there was not a land called Cannan, or the city of Jeruselem, or a nation called Egypt. Facts in scripture provide the backdrop for the mythology, putting it in the context of our world and helping us to understand its message.

Religion is not fundamentalism and does not believe in the inerrancy of its scriptures. In Christianity, St. Augustine himself established precedents for interpreting the Bible and resolving its contradictions. Thus, fact, does not change religion.

In theology, the study of religion, facts play a major role, as the study itself is based upon the combination of the history of religion, its people, and its scripture.



Facts are not essential to theology. Fiction novels can name real places but have fictional happenings. (This is not to say that is fiction, just worth mentioning because it does not prove a thing)

Regardless of what St. Augustine established, there are "Christians" who do not follow it the same way. Now to establish a certain canon is one thing, but that does not make it universal for all Christians. Now if we are to assume that you mean his canon is the "correct" way and therefore a fact, I would disagree.

Also because "facts" (in terms of history) are generally told with a twist that most folk who read even minutely know are false, I am apt to not agree with this post.

Originally posted by chithappens
Facts are not essential to theology. Fiction novels can name real places but have fictional happenings. (This is not to say that is fiction, just worth mentioning because it does not prove a thing)

I'd say fact is also essential to fiction. I never clamed the end product is factual, I said that facts are required to give it proper and believable context.

Originally posted by chithappens
Regardless of what St. Augustine established, there are "Christians" who do not follow it the same way. Now to establish a certain canon is one thing, but that does not make it universal for all Christians. Now if we are to assume that you mean his canon is the "correct" way and therefore a fact, I would disagree.

There is no correct way, he simply provided a historically accepted precedent.

Originally posted by chithappens
Also because "facts" (in terms of history) are generally told with a twist that most folk who read even minutely know are false, I am apt to not agree with this post. Then I assume you believe that a fact cannot exist out of the present? (in the past or the future)

Originally posted by leonheartmm
id like to make a small correction{if u dont mind} in the first statement. in formal logic, inferences{or stating facts} only work in the present and for the past. you can only really say that so n so even happened since x time till now with 100% assurity. you can NOT use it to say that the event will also KEEP ON HAPPENING, at some basic level, that is faith. based on high probability.

Inferring a universal conclusion from particular premises is strong induction; so no, it is not faith.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'd say fact is also essential to fiction. I never clamed the end product is factual, I said that facts are required to give it proper and believable context.


Point taken.

Originally posted by Alliance

Then I assume you believe that a fact cannot exist out of the present? (in the past or the future)

I believe that fact, in terms of history and the such, is skewed by the author. What you are referring to as fact, I would call truth. There are different truths among folk; to me, fact is actually what happened regardless of what the shared paradigm is.

Originally posted by chithappens
I believe that fact, in terms of history and the such, is skewed by the author. What you are referring to as fact, I would call truth. There are different truths among folk; to me, fact is actually what happened regardless of what the shared paradigm is.

As a historian, I'd say it is impossible to achieve your truth because:

It is impossible to analyze history without using the paradigms of others. Even something like a photograph is influenced by those who made it.

Even using the available paradigms, you will never have all of them.

Given that, I'd see a looser definition of truth/fact (in a general sense).

Originally posted by Alliance
As a historian, I'd say it is impossible to achieve your truth because:

It is impossible to analyze history without using the paradigms of others. Even something like a photograph is influenced by those who made it.

Even using the available paradigms, you will never have all of them.

Given that, I'd see a looser definition of truth/fact (in a general sense). Dude, what now, are you a doctor of medicine, a historian, a political scientist, a biologist or 21 years old. Jesus, make up your mind.

I'm not a political scientist. Thats a hobby

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm not a political scientist. Thats a hobby

Do you think you have the experience and expertise to call yourself any of that just yet?

Yes. I've been doind my own independant research in both fields for over two years. If thinkgs go well, I should have two publications under my belt. Am i reforming my field, certianly not. But I know what it takes to answer questions. I understand how to tackle problems.

Most of my history, including my thesis, is ancient Roman history. "Fact" is a word that I have lots of trouble with, as when you have two authors as the only sources commenting on a single event, the likelyhood you know the "facts" is very low. However, this does not resign us to not knowing anyhting about Roman history. A large part of history is deciding what the facts are...and the facts continuously change. Fact, as a loose term, is always mutable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a difference. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I have seen it before, and I understand how the Earth rotating works to make the sun come up in the morning.


That's not Faith, that's knowledge. It's something you know without a doubt.


Faith itself is belief in something with some sort of evidense (but not proof) to back it up. However, conviction is still there for some valid or acceptable reason.

Your Faith in Buddhism, for example, qualifies. You beleive in the effects of Buddhism, because you have SEEN IT yourself, over and over. Therefore your Faith that it will further aid you in the future is supported.


Blind Faith is unsupported Faith, with absolutely no evidense or support to back it up. Just beleiving in something because you want to, or because someone else told you too.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That's not Faith, that's knowledge. It's something you know without a doubt.

Do you know. You can't say for certian the sun will rise tomorrow.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That's not Faith, that's knowledge. It's something you know without a doubt.


Faith itself is belief in something with some sort of evidense (but not proof) to back it up. However, conviction is still there for some valid or acceptable reason.

Your Faith in Buddhism, for example, qualifies. You beleive in the effects of Buddhism, because you have SEEN IT yourself, over and over. Therefore your Faith that it will further aid you in the future is supported.


Blind Faith is unsupported Faith, with absolutely no evidense or support to back it up. Just beleiving in something because you want to, or because someone else told you too.

yes but you dont know without a doubt whether a thing will CONTINUE to happen. just because the earth stays beneath your feat today doesnt mean it can never NOT be there. there just is a VERY low probability of it happening. what if due to sum unseen physical anomoly the sun turned into a blackhole tomorrow. its probably never gonna happen but certainly, there is not 100% assurity that it WONT happen. just NEALRY 100%. the remaining point percentage is filled by faith.

{the same technical reason why scientific laws are NEVER called LAWS. they are always called THEORIES}

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That's not Faith, that's knowledge. It's something you know without a doubt.


Faith itself is belief in something with some sort of evidense (but not proof) to back it up. However, conviction is still there for some valid or acceptable reason.

Your Faith in Buddhism, for example, qualifies. You beleive in the effects of Buddhism, because you have SEEN IT yourself, over and over. Therefore your Faith that it will further aid you in the future is supported.


Blind Faith is unsupported Faith, with absolutely no evidense or support to back it up. Just beleiving in something because you want to, or because someone else told you too.

My faith in Buddhism is like the sun coming up in the morning. I know that is works for me because it is not magic or supernatural.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My faith in Buddhism is like the sun coming up in the morning. I know that is works for me because it is not magic or supernatural.


Yes, but your Faith is not blind, because you have seen the results already. You just can't prove it to someone else.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Yes, but your Faith is not blind, because you have seen the results already. You just can't prove it to someone else.

I have proved it to other people. My wife and several of my friends joined after they saw how I changed.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That's not Faith, that's knowledge. It's something you know without a doubt.


Faith itself is belief in something with some sort of evidense (but not proof) to back it up. However, conviction is still there for some valid or acceptable reason.

Your Faith in Buddhism, for example, qualifies. You beleive in the effects of Buddhism, because you have SEEN IT yourself, over and over. Therefore your Faith that it will further aid you in the future is supported.


Blind Faith is unsupported Faith, with absolutely no evidense or support to back it up. Just beleiving in something because you want to, or because someone else told you too. You're such an idiot. Making key words in your posts in bold makes you look even more of an idiot. Please stop that.

Originally posted by Alliance
In Christian scripture, I doubt you think that there was not a land called Cannan, or the city of Jeruselem, or a nation called Egypt. Facts in scripture provide the backdrop for the mythology, putting it in the context of our world and helping us to understand its message.
However, if it was theoreticaly provin that there was never a Land of Cannan (As rediculous as that sounds), I don't think you could doubt that the majority of christians would go on believing there was one in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You're such an idiot. Making key words in your posts in bold makes you look even more of an idiot. Please stop that.

It does not make him look stupid. It just makes him look like JIA, oh, wait, I see what you mean.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It does not make him look stupid. It just makes him look like JIA, oh, wait, I see what you mean. I said it makes him look like an idiot, and I said that because it does. I see where you got that idea from though. Next time don't think looking like an idiot and looking stupid are the same.

Faith is believing that something will happen. Blind Faith is believing that something will happen.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It does not make him look stupid. It just makes him look like JIA, oh, wait, I see what you mean.

13

Originally posted by lord xyz
I said it makes him look like an idiot, and I said that because it does. I see where you got that idea from though. Next time don't think looking like an idiot and looking stupid are the same.

So, you simply did not understand the extreme irony of my post.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You're such an idiot. Making key words in your posts in bold makes you look even more of an idiot. Please stop that.


Have Sex. It'll do you wondors.