Faith and Evidence

[didyoumythme]

After having many conversations with TBM friends and family about history/doctrine that concerns me, it seems that people often do not care about evidence. Faith only has value insomuch as it represents the real world, however, when TBM members are faced with ideas/facts that contradict their faith, they opt for faith instead of accepting so much of what we know about the world. They choose the comfort of their own beliefs instead of trying to reconcile their beliefs to what actually is.

I currently define faith as a belief in something for which there is no evidence. Orthodox members won't accept this definition, but they are backed into it when they are presented with evidence.

What is the relationship between faith and evidence?

[Corsair]

Faith and evidence has a very tentative relationsip by definition, most of the time. There are groups that try to firmly support their faith through some level of evidence. Ironically, apologists are not often appreciated by either the faithful or the heretics.

Let's give devout faith a little bit of credit. It does inspire people to sacrifice and for both infernal and divine causes. Unbelief, skepticism, and critical thinking faces an uphill battle to summon the drive for great causes. I have a heretical hypothesis that while the theistic God is probably not there, the mass of humanity still needs religion to maintain civil society.

[Jinx]

DH says that faith and obedience are largely the same thing. Both have their bases in "because I said so". As was shown in the recent election, most people don't care a fig about evidence. It is human nature to believe what you want to believe, and when the only evidence you have is an emotional feeling your belief can be even stronger. It's frustrating to someone like me who looks for honest answers, but statistically I'm in the minority.

[didyoumythme]

Let's give devout faith a little bit of credit. It does inspire people to sacrifice and for both infernal and divine causes. Unbelief, skepticism, and critical thinking faces an uphill battle to summon the drive for great causes. I have a heretical hypothesis that while the theistic God is probably not there, the mass of humanity still needs religion to maintain civil society.

I agree that Faith can have value and bring people comfort. Our world has relied on it for millennia. It does appear, however, that faith (or at least faith in popular doctrines) is a remnant of ages past as people tried to understand the world. A God of the Gaps mentality was natural because the gaps in understanding were so large. We still have plenty to learn, but the gaps in which God can fit are much smaller now.

There is another side of the faith coin that leads to suffering and violence in the name of God - the side that threatens civil society. The most obvious example we see today is through Islam. Although not every Muslim opts for a literal reading of all passages, the radicals that blow up thousands in the name of God can't be criticized for their more literal reading in the name of faith.

This is where the rubber meets the road with faith and evidence. People are heavily influenced by what they believe about the world. Therefore, it is in everyone's best interest to allow beliefs to be challenged. We should expect justification for beliefs held about the world instead of giving a pass in the name of faith.

[Newme]

I really believe that "all have faith but not all are conscious of having faith." We all believe things that cannot be proven - because subjectivity is inevitable. The problem arises when people are blind to how they apply faith - so their faith may be misapplied. IE: So many foods have poisonous additives but it's often ignored because most people trust that the FDA would never allow that, but they do.

Paraphrasing a quote... I have faith when evidence is lacking, but I won't stubbornly stick to my faith when it contradicts evidence. A good balance involves both healthy skepticism as well as faith. Without skepticism, you'll accept whatever nonsense. Without faith, you're paralyzed by your skepticism.

[Processing . . .]

Jonathon Hait in 'The Righteous Mind" explains that the purpose of a shared morality is to "bind and blind". The shared belief brings people together with rites, ceremony, and common language. At the same time it blinds them to the obvious contradictions inherent in any belief system. This allows members to identify non-believers because they won't treat the belief with the same reverence. The concept of faith allows believer's to circumvent cognitive dissonance by allowing a way to follow belief when the evidence shouldn't allow it.

[achilles]

I have faith when evidence is lacking, but I won't stubbornly stick to my faith when it contradicts evidence.

The scriptures say faith is evidence of things not seen, but are nevertheless true. This suggests to me that:

a) you can only have "faith" in things that are true,
b) by definition, believing in something that is not true is not faith

But how do you know whether what you have faith in is true or not? Evidence. You have to follow the evidence. If a preponderance of evidence challenges a cherished belief, adapt your belief. It boggles my mind that the narrative in fundamentalist Christianity is bass-ackwards from scripture; namely that somehow it is an enormous show of faith to believe something the Bible tells you in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence.

I guess one perfect example is the belief in a young earth in the face of the geological and paleontological record. Do people avoid looking into these things in order to preserve their faith in a 6000 year old earth? I lived about 50 miles away from the Creationism Museum in Northern Kentucky for five years and never ended up checking it out. I guess I didn't want to feel frustrated the whole time I was there... Anyway..

You can only have faith in something that is true.

[MalcolmVillager]

Faith is a slippery subject. Scriptures define it as hope/belief/faith in something not seen (without evidence), which is true (cannot be contradicted by evidence).

So when evidence of anything grows, faith shrinks. It is sort of the "god of the shrinking gaps" in a sense. As scientific evidences discover the previously unknown, God shrinks as faith retreats. I can have all sorts of faith that there was a real Noah and global flood. I can even build a giant replica museum with millions of dollars to show my faith with works. None of that will change the fact that there was never a global flood.

Evidences and knowledge is expanding today, and more importantly, it is accessible to everyone in the information age. This evidence is driving the previously faithful into the "nones" category. Too many institutions are holding to long held and provable false histories and doctrines.

The COJCOLDS is among those institutions and will continue to lose thinkers at an ever increasing rate before they get smart and receive revelation to stop the bleeding.

[Newme]

I have faith when evidence is lacking, but I won't stubbornly stick to my faith when it contradicts evidence.

The scriptures say faith is evidence of things not seen, but are nevertheless true. This suggests to me that:

a) you can only have "faith" in things that are true,
b) by definition, believing in something that is not true is not faith

But how do you know whether what you have faith in is true or not? Evidence. You have to follow the evidence. If a preponderance of evidence challenges a cherished belief, adapt your belief. It boggles my mind that the narrative in fundamentalist Christianity is bass-ackwards from scripture; namely that somehow it is an enormous show of faith to believe something the Bible tells you in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence.

I guess one perfect example is the belief in a young earth in the face of the geological and paleontological record. Do people avoid looking into these things in order to preserve their faith in a 6000 year old earth? I lived about 50 miles away from the Creationism Museum in Northern Kentucky for five years and never ended up checking it out. I guess I didn't want to feel frustrated the whole time I was there... Anyway..

You can only have faith in something that is true.

Achilles,
I know what you mean. Even in my TBM days, I once asked the Sunday School Teacher (who's also a paid church teacher), "How Jesus could be born in the "meridian of time" when Adam and Eve were born about 6,000 BC and Jesus at 1AD, and here we are a little after 2000 in the 'latter days?'" Or what about blind acceptance of the fact that Moses through God, commanded "thou shalt not kill" and then just a few years later after Moses died Joshua led the people to commit mass genocide in order to take over their "promised land" - kind of like Mormons did with the Utes in Utah.

I really think that most people cannot handle BOTH faith and education. Most tend to gravitate toward one or the other. I've struggled with this too. A friend helped me consider this by explaining, "functional illusions are priceless." We will inevitably have illusions (faith without evidence) - but if they work - if they help us or others in some way, then they're valuable.

It seems there are 2 types of faith, or 2 "realities" - the one that is external - where others can substantiate, and the internal reality within our own minds and bodies. It gets really deep when you consider the probable (even if slight) influence mental focus has - like metaphysics demonstrates. That scripture you mentioned, "faith is evidence of things not seen, but are nevertheless true," reminded me of that and theories about dark (invisible) energy... Astronomers can't see the energy, but they know it's there by how it moves around light etc. Similarly, maybe when I feel the spirit - or really any emotion - it's an invisible energy that motivates me in some way - it produces some real influence.

What do you think?

[Hagoth]

Jonathon Hait in 'The Righteous Mind" explains that the purpose of a shared morality is to "bind and blind". The shared belief brings people together with rites, ceremony, and common language. At the same time it blinds them to the obvious contradictions inherent in any belief system. This allows members to identify non-believers because they won't treat the belief with the same reverence. The concept of faith allows believer's to circumvent cognitive dissonance by allowing a way to follow belief when the evidence shouldn't allow it.

Well said. And welcome to NOM!

A core characteristic of a belief system, particularly a fundamentalist belief system like Mormonism, seems to be that the ability to overlook objective facts is praised as a virtue when those facts have even the slightest potential to conflict with the teachings (e.g. what's the point of an apostle publicly maligning the Big Bang Theory?). A preference for empirical objectivity is redefined as pride, stubbornness, stiffneckednes or vanity, while the unfettered acceptance of unfounded claims is lauded as valiant and praiseworthy.

[wtfluff]

You can only have faith in something that is true.

I don't know about this statement...

A lot of folks, particularly in mormonism, have "faith" in things which are patently not true. Book of Abraham? A book "translated" via magic, prehistoric spectacles?

Plenty of folks have faith in things that are not true.

[didyoumythme]

You can only have faith in something that is true.

I don't know about this statement...

A lot of folks, particularly in mormonism, have "faith" in things which are patently not true. Book of Abraham? A book "translated" via magic, prehistoric spectacles?

Plenty of folks have faith in things that are not true.

Faith defined in Mormonism is "a hope for things which are not seen, which are true".
The bible dictionary says about faith, "All true faith must be based upon correct knowledge or it cannot produce the desired results.".

Faith must be based upon truth in order to have any saving value in Mormonism. They claim that their faith represents reality and is therefore worthwhile. Things get difficult for them when evidence starts to contradict their faith. It seems that in many cases TBMs prefer faith to reality.

[wtfluff]

Faith defined in Mormonism is "a hope for things which are not seen, which are true".
The bible dictionary says about faith, "All true faith must be based upon correct knowledge or it cannot produce the desired results.".

Faith must be based upon truth in order to have any saving value in Mormonism. They claim that their faith represents reality and is therefore worthwhile. Things get difficult for them when evidence starts to contradict their faith. It seems that in many cases TBMs prefer faith to reality.

So... What you're saying is: Mormonism's "definition" of faith isn't "true".

To quote a quote I just read somewhere else on the inter-webs: "Nothing true requires you to believe when all evidence points against it."

[Red Ryder]

Faith is just a sticky glue mechanism created to keep people bound to religious beliefs. It's the safety net of the belief system.

Faith shouldn't bridge the gaps but rather drive people towards exploring the gaps. Once explored the gaps will bridge themselves. Than faith becomes circumstantially irrelevant and the motivating factors to further exploration.

I think of it this way. Instead of sitting around talking about faith, humans should be out learning and exploring and gaining knowledge. Rather than have faith that God exists, let's build something to go find God. What if he expects us to find him in a real tangible way? Like literally leave this planet to return back to him instead of building churches, temples, and belief systems that await for his return.

What if we only find god through gaining knowledge, and building a device that will return us to him? The people of the past didn't make it but were a part of the collective knowledge needed to propel the people of the future back to god. The earthly life cycle only stops when mankind finds God and returns to him/her/it.

#PioneerDay2134

[didyoumythme]

What if we only find god through gaining knowledge, and building a device that will return us to him? The people of the past didn't make it but were a part of the collective knowledge needed to propel the people of the future back to god. The earthly life cycle only stops when mankind finds God and returns to him/her/it.

Mind Blown.

[Hagoth]

What if we only find god through gaining knowledge, and building a device that will return us to him? The people of the past didn't make it but were a part of the collective knowledge needed to propel the people of the future back to god. The earthly life cycle only stops when mankind finds God and returns to him/her/it.

Mind Blown.

You better secure the copyright on this, RR and get to work on the screenplay.

[Hagoth]

Faith shouldn't bridge the gaps but rather drive people towards exploring the gaps. Once explored the gaps will bridge themselves. Than faith becomes circumstantially irrelevant and the motivating factors to further exploration.

Yes, it SHOULD be a bridge, but too often it manifests as a wall. And Mexico isn't paying for this one either, it's built on the sweat and sacrifice of faithful members.

[alas]

Faith is just a sticky glue mechanism created to keep people bound to religious beliefs. It's the safety net of the belief system.

Faith shouldn't bridge the gaps but rather drive people towards exploring the gaps. Once explored the gaps will bridge themselves. Than faith becomes circumstantially irrelevant and the motivating factors to further exploration.

I think of it this way. Instead of sitting around talking about faith, humans should be out learning and exploring and gaining knowledge. Rather than have faith that God exists, let's build something to go find God. What if he expects us to find him in a real tangible way? Like literally leave this planet to return back to him instead of building churches, temples, and belief systems that await for his return.

What if we only find god through gaining knowledge, and building a device that will return us to him? The people of the past didn't make it but were a part of the collective knowledge needed to propel the people of the future back to god. The earthly life cycle only stops when mankind finds God and returns to him/her/it.

#PioneerDay2134

In the Bible there is a story about some people who decided to do just that. They were going to build a tower high enough to reach Heaven so that God couldn't decide to drown everybody again. Apparently God was not happy with their efforts.

[oliblish]

You can only have faith in something that is true.

I don't know about this statement...

A lot of folks, particularly in mormonism, have "faith" in things which are patently not true. Book of Abraham? A book "translated" via magic, prehistoric spectacles?

Plenty of folks have faith in things that are not true.

Faith defined in Mormonism is "a hope for things which are not seen, which are true".
The bible dictionary says about faith, "All true faith must be based upon correct knowledge or it cannot produce the desired results.".

Faith must be based upon truth in order to have any saving value in Mormonism. They claim that their faith represents reality and is therefore worthwhile. Things get difficult for them when evidence starts to contradict their faith. It seems that in many cases TBMs prefer faith to reality.

I remember this discussion came up on the NOM 1.0 board. I wish I could look it up. The Mormon definition of faith is self-contradictory.

How is it possible to have faith? Faith is a belief in something that is true that you can't see. If you know that it is true it is not faith - it is knowledge. If you don't know it is true then it isn't faith (just belief). Because what you believe has to be true for it to be faith.

I guess you can have faith but it is impossible for you to know that it is actually faith. You can have a belief in something that is true but if you have faith that implies that you know it is true and suddenly it changes from faith to knowledge... Am I making sense here?

[achilles]

Why do I have a George Michael song in my head?