And why I can't I have any
Published on February 23, 2008 By stubbyfinger In Religion

 

I have never understood faith. People tell me it’s faith to believe that anything is going to happen that has chance of not happening. This is not true, and it confuses faith with trust. Faith is the belief in something despite the evidence. Trust is the belief in something because of the evidence. The level of trust I have that a given action will result in a predictable consequence is directly related to the percentage of times that consequence occurs. I have the maximum trust in that when I hit the letter G that letter will appear on my screen because it has always done so. My level of trust can go down to zero from there.

 I can attempt to fool myself by artificially increasing my level of trust in something for the purpose of easing my mind. When shooting pool for instance I will attempt to see a low percentage shot as easy, artificially increasing the odds in my mind so that I may relax more. This does work somewhat, but deep down I still know it was a shot that I’m only going to make say once or twice out of ten attempts. Having faith does ease your mind, even if it’s a forced delusion. I can only imagine how much so if I could completely ignore the real odds.

 Nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist. When I watch Ghost Hunters or any other paranormal television I see a comedy, not a documentary. Every one of their evidences has been explained away. When a human body is opened there is no bright light shooting out with angels singing, you reveal a flawed biological machine that resembles many other species  and does not defy explanation, and could even now be significantly improved upon.

 The differences between humans and the four top primates is very small. The fact is there may be only a few small abilities that other animals have and primates are missing, that if they had could lead to the development of other exclusively human abilities like the desire to teach and understanding what someone else is thinking in them. Paying attention to what someone else is trying to tell you for instance is an ability that most every dog on the planet has and that primates lack, could when boiled down to it, be the only thing that’s kept them from becoming self-aware and on a similar path as ours. Over time their brains would have grow larger and they would begin to build shelters and form societies. Primates have already shown they can work together for the greater good. There bodies would undergo small changes as a result of different needs placed upon them, but they would always look like apes. So I trust that evolution is how the species on this planet including humans developed because that’s what the evidence tells me. I don’t have faith in it and it’s not a religion.

 There are thousands of stories of people performing miracles throughout history. Does that mean we’ve had thousands of gods walking among us? No of course not. Is it odd that there would be only a few that became the most famous? No it’s inevitable this would occur. Is it unusual or against human nature that the most famous of these would be perpetuated then used by those in power for their own reasons having nothing to do with truth? No it’s been a favorite tool of leaders for all of recorded history. Is it likely that only these most famous would be considered the only ones that were telling the truth? Yes to even consider that the others were telling the truth would marginalize the most famous.

 So in light of all this is it more likely that Jesus was the only one of these that was the son of a god, or that none of them were? How you answer that is up to you but if you consider the odds it’s almost as likely the letter P is going to pop up on the screen when I hit the letter G.

  If I were to have faith in god I would have to be capable of deluding myself completely and ignoring what logic and the odds tell me and the fact that religion would exist regardless, I have no idea how to do that. I would probably be happier if I could but I can’t.  I really don’t want to burn in hell forever so to any of you whom has a personal relationship with god or his son please have him come over and explain things, maybe even a quick tour of heaven, because anything short of that and I’m scewed.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 23, 2008

You sound like you have a statistical mindset.  Everything has a probability from 0, it's not going to happen, to 1, it's definitely going to happen.

Faith is interesting...though I have only a little.  It just seems that things either happen or they don't and there's not much you can do to change it unless do something that directly affects the situation.  Having faith is believing...and believing has no real effect on the world outside of your mind, only action.

Of course, the main purpose of faith is to feel better.  That's what it's used for...this will be okay because I have faith, this guy will be punished because I have faith, I'm going to heaven because I have faith.  There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a way to deal with things that you normally have no control over.

~Zoo

 

on Feb 23, 2008

Why can't I change the font of that last paragraph?

on Feb 23, 2008
Why can't I change the font of that last paragraph?


Because the internet is not your friend.

Hmm, did you highlight and try to mess with it? Like so? Wingdings!

~Zoo
on Feb 23, 2008

Hey Zoo,

Hmm, did you highlight and try to mess with it? Like so? Wingdings!

Yea I have no problem changing the rest of the article but the font on that last paragraph is locked for some reason (

You sound like you have a statistical mindset.

I must have.

I don't consider wishing something to be true as faith. I agree though it does make you feel better to wish things to go your way despite the odds.  I play the lotto once in a while even though I know it's just a tax on people whom are bad at math

on Feb 23, 2008
Faith (or belief) is a tool for achieving results, not the end result itself. That's what I think, and its worked for me.


Makes sense. It can help you get from one place to another...yeah, I can see that.

~Zoo
on Feb 23, 2008

If you don't understand how a microwave works, you still have 'faith' that if you put a cuppa joe in there for a minute or two... its gonna get hot.

 

That’s not faith it’s trust. I trust the microwave is going to heat my cup of joe because every time I use it, that’s what happens. Faith would be unplugging the microwave then expecting it to heat your coffee. I don’t have to have a clue how something works to trust that it’s going to work. I don’t understand gravity but I put a great deal of trust in that I’m not going to shoot off into space anytime soon.

on Feb 24, 2008

Faith, in the religious sense, is a belief in a set of principles, perhaps, a doctrine, or set of practices. Its roots (from OED),  both Anglo-Saxon and French, are derived from the Latin, fides, which suggests trust. 

 

We trust the toaster will toast if we know about toasters, but if we do not know about toasters, have no evidence they will toast, but are told by a trusted source that they will do so, then if we believe they will toast, we are said to have faith in toasters. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Be well.

on Feb 24, 2008

When you say "evolution is how the species on this planet including humans developed because that’s what the evidence tells me." that just doesn't make sense.  I'm no scientist, but looking at the utter complexity of the human anatomy, how can you say that it "evolved" from basically nothing?  Here's an example; if I told you that mount rushmore wasn't actually carved out of that rock, but that millions and millions of years of wind and water erosion made those faces appear, you'd probablly think I was loony.  How then is it different to say that millions and millions of years can make even the simplest of organisms from nothing?

on Feb 24, 2008

Faith, in the religious sense, is a belief in a set of principles, perhaps, a doctrine, or set of practices. Its roots (from OED), both Anglo-Saxon and French, are derived from the Latin, fides, which suggests trust.

"FIDES" is often (and wrongly) translated 'faith', but it has nothing to do with the word as used by Christians writing in Latin about the Christian virute (St. Paul Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13). For the Romans, FIDES was an essential element in the character of a man of public affairs, and a necessary constituent element of all social and political transactions (perhaps = 'good faith'). FIDES meant 'reliablilty', a sense of trust between two parties if a relationship between them was to exist. FIDES was always reciprocal and mutual, and implied both privileges and responsibilities on both sides. In both public and private life the violation of FIDES was considered a serious matter, with both legal and religious consequences. FIDES, in fact, was one of the first of the 'virtues' to be considered an actual divinity at Rome. The Romans had a saying, "Punica fides" (the reliability of a Carthaginian) which for them represented the highest degree of treachery: the word of a Carthaginian (like Hannibal) was not to be trusted, nor could a Carthaginian be relied on to maintain his political elationships”.

Good Faith is the correct translation of Fides and “good faith” has a much different meaning than the word “faith” alone.

 Faith and Trust while having a common root have grown apart in meaning and are no longer interchangeable IMO. Whether you agree with this or not for the purpose of this article the definition will be restricted to a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”.   

 I hope you’re well too

 Mark

on Feb 24, 2008

There's no such thing as gravity. The earth just sucks. Really hard.

 

If that were true beach balls would be really heavy.

on Feb 24, 2008

 

 tygonIs,

 

Tell me the truth, your cat choose your user name right?

 

I don’t want this to turn into another evolution argument please and thank you.

 

KFC’s got that subject covered.

 

 

on Feb 24, 2008
When you say "evolution is how the species on this planet including humans developed because that’s what the evidence tells me." that just doesn't make sense. I'm no scientist, but looking at the utter complexity of the human anatomy, how can you say that it "evolved" from basically nothing? Here's an example; if I told you that mount rushmore wasn't actually carved out of that rock, but that millions and millions of years of wind and water erosion made those faces appear, you'd probablly think I was loony. How then is it different to say that millions and millions of years can make even the simplest of organisms from nothing?


Well, it's easier to say magic, isn't it? Why does lightining strike? Positive and negative ions...nah...God obviously. Why does a volcano erupt? Pressure from magma under the earth finally being released...or maybe God was just angry, yeah that's it. How are babies born? God put it there of course, no way could sperm and egg come together and form a zygote without any outside interference from God.

Do you see how that mindset goes? "I don't understand it, God did it." You look at the evidence and it doesn't make sense to you...God obviously did it. God=magic when you look at the world...science seeks to figure out what really happens aside from whatever preconceived ideas the rest of the world has.

Evolution is really easy to get if you take the time...in fact, browse the forums for some articles and more than likely you'll see my comments in there going into great detail about the entire process.

Using your Mt. Rushmore example. Erosion didn't create it, but a human did. That human made it bit, by bit...not all at once. That's kind of like evolution. Small changes occcur in something(in this case a mountain) and eventually it becomes something new(a sculpture).

Anywho, that's as far as I'm going. I don't want stubby to drown in another one of these debates.

~Zoo

on Feb 24, 2008

Using your Mt. Rushmore example. Erosion didn't create it, but a human did. That human made it bit, by bit...not all at once. That's kind of like evolution. Small changes occcur in something(in this case a mountain) and eventually it becomes something new(a sculpture).


hmmmmmm and here I was thinking it was all about a designer.....


You can have FAITH in anything.  I have FAITH that my husband will get up every morning at 6 am to read before he goes to work.  I have FAITH that my sons will call me sometime during the week.  I don't know for sure, but I have faith that they will.


In church today I taught the ladies an acronym for FAITH.  Perhaps you've heard it?  From a Christian POV of  course we have faith in God. So we say.....


F-orsaking


A-ll


I


T-rust


H-im


 

on Feb 24, 2008

"FIDES" is often (and wrongly) translated 'faith', but it has nothing to do with the word as used by Christians writing in Latin about the Christian virute (St. Paul Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13). For the Romans, FIDES was an essential element in the character of a man of public affairs, and a necessary constituent element of all social and political transactions (perhaps = 'good faith'). FIDES meant 'reliablilty', a sense of trust between two parties if a relationship between them was to exist. FIDES was always reciprocal and mutual, and implied both privileges and responsibilities on both sides. In both public and private life the violation of FIDES was considered a serious matter, with both legal and religious consequences. FIDES, in fact, was one of the first of the 'virtues' to be considered an actual divinity at Rome. The Romans had a saying, "Punica fides" (the reliability of a Carthaginian) which for them represented the highest degree of treachery: the word of a Carthaginian (like Hannibal) was not to be trusted, nor could a Carthaginian be relied on to maintain his political elationships”. Good Faith is the correct translation of Fides and “good faith” has a much different meaning than the word “faith” alone.

 

I did not translate it as such, but pointed out with the Oxford English Dictionary, its derivation.   One wonders what your stumbling block is. Perhaps an exploration of the relationships between faith, belief, and trust might be helpful. I thought I was pointing you in that direction with my example. 

 

Be well.

on Feb 24, 2008

hmmmmmm and here I was thinking it was all about a designer.....


I said creation could've occured at the very onset of life. But bit by bit(microbe by microbe) things became more complex.   Perhaps I should clarify more.  The erosion in my example would illustrate random chaos becoming a recognizable, complex form.  The human represents a more ordered process...natural selection.   However, it's difficult to draw appropriate analogies with inanimate objects because living things cannot really be compared to things that are not alive.


Creation would dictate that the entire mountain was revamped with four faces in the blink of an eye.

~Zoo

2 Pages1 2