Belief, faith, doubt

[Chriliman]

It's not a claim, it's a verbal outline that describes semantic meaning of words that you are using.

With that, I'm done, sorry. You cannot honestly say the diagram is not a claim. Give me a break!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Great, so you agree that claims are evidence?

You're either using the word "evidence" to mean evidence that someone made a claim, which imparts no information and is virtually useless, or you mean evidence that the claim is true, which is patently ridiculous.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In your own words, what is the interaction problem of dualism that arises from the immaterial?

Superficially, it's quite a simple question - how does the supposedly immaterial (non-physical) interact with the material (physical). Any influence on the physical - protons, neutrons, & electrons - must be a physical interaction. In other words, there is an implicit paradox or contradiction in dualism.

The supposedly immaterial realm of substance dualism is something different from the 'realm' of conceptual abstractions such as truth, which are symbolic relations (with physical representations, e.g. on paper, or in the brain).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'll put it this way: Is a claim evidence or not? If a claim is evidence of itself, then a claim is evidence. If a claim is not evidence of itself, then a claim is not evidence. This is really basic logic! Please pick the right answer.

You read my previous post, which says all I want to say on this. I'm not getting on this roundabout of obdurate obstinacy again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think the semantics of the issue comes to play, mainly because there's no clear distinction of "natural mechanics" when it comes to these concepts like, truth, love, logic. Thus, these are cast into "non-material" category, while in reality these seem to be material processes that are being conceptualized.

Yes; perhaps I'm asking too much - for an acknowledgement of a qualitative (category) difference between conceptual abstractions and a non-material (e.g. spiritual) realm...

 

[devolved]

With that, I'm done, sorry. You cannot honestly say the diagram is not a claim. Give me a break!

Well, diagram is not a claim. It's an oversimplified representation of something.

In this case, I've provided you with definitions that outline the differences between claim and evidence. You gain absolutely nothing by saying that "diagram is a claim". because you keep misunderstanding what a claim is, and that claim itself can't be the evidence of what it proposes.

I gave you example with a $100 in my pocket, and I've shown you that claim alone can't help you make adequate decision. You actually experienced it here firsthand as to why it can't.

I'm not sure what else you are trying to do.

Claim alone doesn't give enough information about whether such claim is correct. We always rely on external information to validate the claim, and that's what evidence is.

 

[zippy2006]

And what is the difference between someone who consciously decides to believe the witness and someone who consciously decides not to? My point is that there is more going on beneath the surface that allows (or not) for one to be consciously receptive to the witness. It is what we are not aware of that is of upmost importance when it comes to beliefs.

Now, many might say it is the Holy Spirit within them that allows them to see the truth of the witness and my response is you might want to investigate that to be sure since the stakes are much too high to just assume that is the case.

It is Catholic dogma that at the Last Judgment all will agree that they had been given sufficient evidence to believe the witness. Whether some particular person believed and what that belief exactly looks like is fully known to God alone. The faith of any one person will look different than that of the next.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is Catholic dogma that at the Last Judgment all will agree that they had been given sufficient evidence to believe the witness...

Can't wait that long, life's too short

 

[Freodin]

It is Catholic dogma that at the Last Judgment all will agree that they had been given sufficient evidence to believe the witness.

It is a very easy way to swat gnats, by simply establishing the dogma that the gnat has been swatted.

 

[Geralt]

even Satan believes in God and most likely the more prominent theologian than any human who lived on this planet. he knows God first and foremost even before the creation of man.

what he does not have however is have faith in God.

Believe in God, Yes. Believing God, No

and there is your answer to the relationship or contrast between faith and belief.

In my view, there is much misunderstanding of the concept of faith, especially how it relates to belief. This all stems from the fact that we often don't know how our beliefs are formed. We are aware of some influencers on how our beliefs are formed such as our intellect or our upbringing, but we are not aware of all influencers. We overestimate how much we consciously choose our beliefs and underestimate how much our subconscious influences what we believe. This, of course, is inevitable.

Since a lot of religion operates outside of the intellect, you find that people will believe something but they do not have a conscious awareness of why they believe it. This is an uncomfortable feeling so naturally people will consciously investigate a reason for their belief. The popular explanation to satisfy this uncertainty is to attribute it to 'faith' since faith is something that seems to be valued and of high importance, so essentially you can kill two birds with one stone.

However, faith is not a reason for belief. We believe something because we believe it. If we don't consciously understand exactly why we believe something, then that just means we don't know how that belief formed, not that we believe it based on faith. The idea that if we don't intellectually understand why we believe something, then it must be because of faith is a misconception.

What is faith then? Faith is to investigate or pursue something that we don't have a belief in or at least don't completely believe in. Faith is actually oppositional to belief and can only be exercised outside of the bubble of our current beliefs. Doubt, resistance, and uncertainty are requirements for faith because they are indicators that we are operating outside of that bubble, in the darkness of non-belief.

To summarize, we can't have faith in our spiritual/religious beliefs since these beliefs require nothing to preserve them. We can only have faith in what threatens our beliefs. If you never allow yourself to detach from your beliefs, if you don't embrace doubt, then you don't embrace faith, and don't exercise faith. Faith isn't about protecting or preserving your existing, stale and tired hope; it's about trusting that if you allow yourself to feel exposed and step into the darkness of vulnerability, then you will find/be given a better hope. Then, when that new hope becomes stale and doubt shows back up, you exercise faith again.. and again.