Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

That seems fairly accurate. One qualifier I might add is that faith is capable of considering several possibilities too. That doesn't fit for me and my faith.From The Catholic Encyclopedia on Faith:

quote:

---

Faith may be considered both objectively and subjectively

​

Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see RULE OF FAITH) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.

---

quote:

---

(a) The twofold order of knowledge. "The Catholic Church", says the Vatican Council, III, iv, "has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."

---

bold added for emphasis Too though, the objects of faith can be questioned. Not so much with my faith.And who takes everything they believe on faith!? I don't think I'm fitting into your target audience here. Oh well, that ain't gonna stop me from replying I think the Catholic Encyclopedia has some great pages pertaining to your topic. I don't think they are the explanation you are particularly looking for, but maybe if you just want to honestly learn about it, you can find some answers in these pages: The Catholic Encyclopedia on TRUTH

quote:

---

Truth is a relation which holds (1) between the knower and the known Logical Truth; (2) between the knower and the outward expression which he gives to his knowledge Moral Truth; and (3) between the thing itself, as it exists, and the idea of it, as conceived by God Ontological Truth. In each case this relation is, according to the Scholastic theory, one of correspondence, conformity, or agreement

---

The Catholic Encyclopedia on REVELATION

quote:

---

Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.

​

The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason.

---

I hope this helps explain how a faith-based approach to truth is not necessarily the antithesis of approaching truth through "questioning everything"I realize your discussion focuses on those for which this is not true but I just wanted to explain that the way you're expressing things here doesn't fit for many poeple. Like when you say this:

Sounds like 'trust' to me... I don't think that's faith either I'd call that willfull ignorance and mental gymnastics.For me, the worldview is shaped by experience. Faith is reserved for a position that lacks sufficient evidence but is believed anyway. I know what your referring to but I just don't use the word 'faith' for it. I don't think a strictly empirical approach is going to work for things that aren't clearly and objectively existant.

You're welcome, Meldinoor... What does "Meldinoor" mean? <-- clicky Well okay, I guess that's fine. For sure. Look at how bad some marriages end. Nope. If I was certain then I would "know". Yes, the latter. That's how it feels to me.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

If its genuine interest, then reply away. I'm open to sharing. I don't care to "argue" my personal beliefs though. Yeah, but in addition to the overconfidence in poor evidence remains the confidence in the face of a lack of evidence that I think you're thinking many others mean by faith. Is that what you're referring to? Yes, to an extent.Its so hypothetical though. It depends on the strength of the evidence vs. the strength of the faith. For examples: Zeitgiest didn't make me doubt Jesus' divinity while the ToE proves that Genesis isn't literal and inerrant. I think its kind of both....It is subject to evidence, but there does seem to be something deeper there that I have little choice with.

Got a link? Sounds like an interesting read. I doubt it is very different, but my faith is not evidence independent. I was an atheist for a while around college-time. I did some investigating of various religion and soul-searching kind of stuff and ended up concluding that god does exist. From what I experienced, I don't think I can go back and choose to not believe in god anymore. What do you mean that they think that their conclusion are flying in the face of likelihood? Like I was saying above, I'm convinced. I'm capable of being convinced otherwise, but still then, it wouldn't really be me choosing to be convinced. It would just happen.For a, somewhat poor, analogy (that I think has been brought up to you before), think of your favorite color. Do you have any choice in that matter? I don't, I just like red.

That the majority of humans think that god exists is an objectively evidenced reason the think that they might. And if you realize that the premise that 'the possibility that gods actually exist is totally objectively unevidenced' is false then you'll see that your argument isn't sound. Totally unevidence... infinitely more likely...Sounds like absolutes to me.

The Bible.orMy mommy told me god exists.There's reasons to suppose....

That's all fine and dandy in the lab, but for everyday pratical purposes it just doesn't work.

Millions of believers couldn't be wrong... an objective reason for supposition. But a reason none-the-less? But I'm not in the lab right now...

As an aside, in regards to the methodology of science:When the gravity equations didn't come out right and the proposition for dark matter emerged, as opposed to questioning the validity of the equations, wouldn't you agree that the methodology of science was not how you are describing it here?

What's objective is that millions of people believe. While logically fallacious and a poorly accurate, its still a reason to suppose the existence of god.

I don't see how the failure of an equation causing the supposition of something totally new fits in with science assuming the null position until objective evidence comes along.

I don't think so. For one, I think my subjective experiences do necessitate the question so the lack of objectiveness doesn't really matter for me. For two, I think there is objective reasons to suppoes that god exists. The question IS relevent. That the millions of people could be wrong doesn't negate the objectiveness of the evidence nor it being a reason for the supposition of a god existing.

Sure it does. Why do so many people believe? Maybe there really is a god. The supposition has begun. The popularity doesn't add weight to the veracity, but it is a reason to suppose. The majority of people believing that god does exist.

Yeah, and you're right that in the context of scientific methodlogy, the question of god's existence is uneccessary. God never comes up in the lab. But outside of that, I think it is a relevant question and supposition is warranted. I think you're moving the goalpost.You said that there's no objective reason to suppose the existence of god. From a scientific standpoint, I tend to agree. But since that methodology doesn't work pratically for everyday situations, I've moved from the purely scientific standpoint. And then I think that its fairly easy to find an objective reason for the supposition. Old books saying so and the popularity of the belief are the first two reasons that came to mind. I think they're sufficient enough to at least suppose that god exists.