Does faith eliminate the ability to call things non-existent?

Question

Let's say I decide that everything I can know or infer based on observation and testing is not all there is in the universe, but that in addition to that, I must have faith in some things, evidence or no evidence. Once I decide I must have faith, what tool do I use to call anything false? Pixies, unicorns, santa claus, God, Buddha: Prior to faith, I had a reasonable suspicion (not proof) that these things were false, because I had no confirmation of any of it. Now, with faith, I no longer have the tools to claim anything as false, because by using faith, I've thrown out the tools I normally use to infer all things as either true or false. Thoughts?

Answer 1

Very good and honest question.

I happen to be a Christian that does demand evidence. Faith in something (or someone) is not something that comes out of thin air.

Yet as a naturalist (I presume you are one, forgive me if you are not), you must be prepared to face evidence that may come in forms different from what certain ideologies allow as acceptable.

For instance, we all observe that there are moral absolutes. No one believes that what the Nazis did to the Jews was morally neutral. And we all believe deep down that this was wrong in an absolute sense...not only that it will "come back to us in the end", but that it in fact was morally evil to murder the Jews.

Yet there is no basis for this in a naturalistic/materialistic world. In a materialistic world, all we are is a very complex collection of chemicals. Since the holocaust has absolutely no effect on this "truth", then nothing can be said about it one way or the other. The holocaust was still simply a very complex collection of chemicals.

Yet we all see that this position is characteristic of a madman. What we are shown here is that there is some sort of non-material source of this moral code (since everything has a source).

We also have existence. Well, we all know and believe in the principle of causality. Since we have existence we know that there must have been something that caused this existence to be: we are right...when our parents conceived us, we began to exist. We of course do not stop there...we must go back to some original cause, a First Cause, which must have an existence that is not contingent upon causality, otherwise nothing could exist (so it is pointless to ask, "Well, who created this First Cause?"). Things do exist therefore there is a First Cause.

These are two very crude presenations of arguments that appeal to common sense and are the breeding ground for Faith.

So no, you do not need to (and certainly should not) believe in something without evidence for it.

Answer 2

Well, first of all there is such a thing as "blind faith" where you just shrug and attribute anything you believe you can't know to some other power, and then there's faith in knowing that some learned person's telling you something that you can come to the same conclusion yourself with analytical study, etc. Like the Buddha said, which I will paraphrase: Question the answers yourself.

Just a fun little FYI, so far nobody's actually been able to solidly refute the Buddha's words in logical debate in over 2000 years, when engaged in TRUE debate.

_()_

Answer 3

Everybody relies on faith. Some put their faith first in science and human "evidence." Some put their faith first in God and His Word.

A discerning Christian places their faith in the Bible, and this provides much direction as to what is reality and what is not--a better guide than human reason, emotion, and physical senses, as a matter of fact. I know non-Christians will doubt that since they do not trust God enough to know the truth of it, but I know it as truth and I trust in that truth.

Also the Christian who is paying attention to God's Holy Spirit can receive direction and revelation from Him as well, so when you are faced with something not specifically addressed in the Bible, you can pray and God will guide you.

To non-Christians, the idea of believing in an invisible God may seem far riskier than trusting in their own observations and testing. But as a Christian, I trust a supernatural God who knows and understands everything much better than mere people ever could. So I trust in the Creator, not the created. Which is more reliable?

Answer 4

There are no logical people that do not show faith. There is no science that does not have its naysayers. Some scientific minds think evolution is good by its self , other scientists say that parts of evolution are good parts are bad scientifically. Thus, Scientists exhibits more faith in some parts of evolution than the other parts.
My question is if science can show Faith why can"t Religion?

Answer 5

Faith and reason cannot exist in the same place at the same time, otherwise one would be utterly unnecessary.

Reason and rational thought is how we know things. Appealing to faith is asking that we know something without thinking about it.

Answer 6

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive Just because you have not experienced them simultaneously does not mean someone else hasn't.

Answer 7

faith doesnt' contradict reason, but goes beyond it, into the transcendant world of GOD> An adult person can use good their heart and good judgement to help them know GOd. I can honestly say that no sane adult can truly heartfully believe in peter pan, but GOD is someone that is real and can be expierienced.

So, practically, listen to your conscience and your heart.

Answer 8

Not at all. You have it reversed. Believing something to be non-existant eliminates the ability to have faith.

Answer 9

I think that evolution is an imaginary thing thus it is non-existent. Have a great evening and a wonderful weekend.
Thank you,
Eds


.

Answer 10

--THE FAITH OF THE BIBLE as God defines it DOES indeed eliminate things that are non-existent!
--THIS IS "FAITH" as defined in the Bible & that all faithful women & men in the Bible exercised:

(Hebrews 11:1) 11 Faith is the *assured expectation of things hoped for, the **evident demonstration of ***realities though not beheld. . .
(FOOTNOTED DERIVATIONS)
*“Assured expectation.” Lit., “a sub-standing.” Gr., hy·po´sta·sis; Lat., sub·stan´ti·a.
**Evident demonstration.” Or, “convincing evidence.” Gr., e´leg·khos; Lat., ar·gu·men´tum. Compare Joh 16:8 ftn.
***Lit., “of things.” Gr., prag·ma´ton

--WHAT YOU HAVE highlighted above in your posting is RELIGIONS , credulous "blind faith"---THAT HAS no support in the Bible, ANYWHERE!
--FALSE RELIGION has used this spurious type of faith to support the blindness needed for such doctrines as the :
**trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, purgatory and all such dogma used to keep people in ignorance of Jehovah God & his Son, Christ Jesus and their ways!

--IF YOU WERE to skim through the chapter of the Bible I referenced-- YOU INDEED would find about 15 named servants of God & many not named that practiced zealously the true faith of the Bible, as defined in vs. 1!

--Being that you are unaware of it, the defined faith of Hebrews 11 goes well in hand with the test of the "scientific method" and its 4 major steps!

***Please notice some commentary by authoritated sources--WRITING about evolution:

g90 1/22 pp. 11-15 Fraud in Science—The "Greatest Fraud of All
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book "The Intelligent Universe", on page 9, talks about those, like Greenstein, who fear God’s entering the picture: “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth [and this concern] has dominated scientific thought throughout the past century.”

In his book he then discusses these same mysterious features that trouble Greenstein. “Such properties,” he says, “seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.” Both Hoyle and Greenstein say chance cannot explain these many “accidental coincidences.” Hoyle then says that to account for them, ‘the origin of the universe requires an intelligence,’ an ‘intelligence on a higher plane,’ ‘an intelligence that preceded us and that led to a deliberate act of creation of structures suitable for life.’

None of this is to be taken as saying that Hoyle is thinking of the God of the Bible, but he does see that behind the universe and the earth and life on it, there must be a tremendous supernatural intelligence. While he does say that “‘God’ is a forbidden word in science,” he allows that we might “define an intelligence superior to ourselves as a deity.” He speculates that “through our own minds’ pre-programmed condition,” there might be “a connecting chain of intelligence, extending downward . . . to humans upon the Earth.”

“There are plenty of indications,” he says, “that this might be so. The restlessness within us is one such hint. It is as if we have an instinctive perception that there is something important for us to carry out. The restlessness comes because we have not been able to discover as yet exactly what its nature is.” Elsewhere he says: “The religious impulse appears to be unique to man . . . Stripped of the many fanciful adornments with which religion has become traditionally surrounded, does it not amount to an instruction within us that expressed rather simply might read as follows: You are derived from something ‘out there’ in the sky. Seek it, and you will find much more than you expect.”

--THUS evolution that has never passed the 2nd -4 steps of "scientific method" ALSO fails the test of true faith JUST as do false doctrine of religion!
--ACTUALLY YOU, have not "thrown out" the tools--- SINCE YOU did not have them to use , according to your specs above!