Self Deceit and Faith. (page 11)

tijkmo

a scientific theory IS as factual as it gets.

o dear o dear

Superfine Apostate

> o dear o dear

first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

btw: gravitation is a theory...

tijkmo

btw: gravitation is a theory...

really...is it the same as the law of gravity?

Superfine Apostate

> really...is it the same as the law of gravity?

almost. the law of gravity simply states "the apple falls down". the theory of gravity explains why and how.

serotonin_wraith

Burn,

Back in 1993 there were 7. I think it's at 8 now.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v15/ai_14891613

http://www.green-jungle.com/20_Origins/origins.html

The old 'theory' misconception- In scientific terms, a theory is an explanation of the facts. It doesn't have the same meaning as the word theory as used in day to day speech. So, we know gravity is real. Gravity is a fact. The theory explains how gravity works, and this can change when new data is available. It doesn't mean gravity isn't real though, just that we have a new understanding of it. Gravity will always be a fact, and so will evolution.

BurnTheShips

Sero, well that raises the bar a bit doesn't it?:-)

Burn

candidlynuts

excellent discussion, my watchtower education prevents me from addressing the more scientific things discussed so i'll just give my opinion/answers to the original question.

1) In what way is faith not self-deception? the very definition of faith seems to allow for self deception. Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof . no proof = more chance of self deception

2) Is a person who has faith in a God that you do not believe in, say for example Siva, practicing a form of self-deception?

This one I'll answer with something I've said many times .. For everything i may believe 100 % to the point that i'd give my LIFE for that belief, another person has a total opposite 100% belief that he/she will give their life for, another person with 100% belief in their god will cut their mother/daughter/father/son/brother/sister out of their life because of that belief, even worse, another person has 100% belief in something that they will KILL another person in the name of that belief. Belief has a lot of power but belief has no value.Every belief can be discredited by someone somewhere , with logical arguments and evidence to the contrary of your belief and you find out you've given your life or taken someone elses life for nothing. And all the while, your god, my god, the other persons god all stay silent and the only power that god has is the power that you yourself gave him with your belief . he/she /it has still done nothing and remained silent.

Zico

Hillary,

"Might I ask, both of yourself and other believers in a personal God, whether their can be in the faith of any believer an element of self-deceit and if so how you can tell? Though BA is willing in other threads to decry the Islamic God and its followers for example, where Shiva is concerned he takes the viewpoint that "time will tell". This strikes me as self-deceit in action.

For example. Islamic extremists on a suicide mission have complete faith that at the moment of dying a martyrs death at the hands of the enemies of Islam that they will be transformed into a heavenly realm. Do you believe that this is possible. If not why not?

I have to ask. Is there a stage of a persons "faith" where there is a possibility for self-deceit and if so where do you and other believers draw this line? I have great trouble in understanding that once the possibility of God existing raises its head, anything outside of this concept that believers add cannot function without an element of self-deceit."

I'm not really sure I can add much to Leolaia's excellent post.

I think the water is muddied where someone claims to have faith in something, that I would not see as faith, but a belief, it's simply different definitions I guess. I also think it's important to distinguish between faith and beliefs. As I said, I see faith as the personal evidence of a divine nature, which is something that people seem to have accessed despite many varying beliefs. If we experience something divine, this would constitute evidence that the divine exists, albeit subjective evidence. The experience can offer evidence of nothing else but that there is a divine source, imo. The suicide bomber may have had a divine experience, or experiences, that proves the divine exists, however, there could be no evidence that blowing himself up would then have him transformed into a heavenly realm. That would be a belief, since there's no evidence it's ever happened. Even if the divine being had told the bomber that this would happen, this would not constitute evidence, because the honest person should accept the possibility that the divine may be lying to him. BAs statement that "time will tell" is, again, belief, and not faith, imo, because there is no evidence for it. I accept that both these things are possible, that "time will tell" on the Shiva issue, and that suicide bombers will be transformed into a heavenly realm, but I don't see possibilities as having much to do with faith.

I don't think beliefs necessarily involve self-deceit, though they certainly can and often do imo. I think self-deceit comes in, when you claim a belief is fact, when reality is that people form many different beliefs, and to claim one belief as fact when there are differing beliefs that have as much as validity as their own, and no evidence, even subjective, to prove that belief, might demand self-deceit, I suppose, though again, not necessarily imo, as it could depend on the evidence one had available. For example:

In the example of the believer in Shiva. If someone has a divine experience whilst praying to Shiva, I could see how one could make the connection it came from Shiva, without having to resort to self-deceit, in fact, I see this as a rational view. If they met other Hindus who claimed the same experience with Shiva, I think they could hold the opinion without any self-deceit. If that same person then met Christians that claimed similar experiences, but that they came from 'Jesus' and they were then to say that these Jesus experiences were not real, and that only the ones that came from Shiva were real, I would agree that was self-deceit, because then they would have evidence that showed this opinion was wrong, and would need to lie to themselves to continue with their old beliefs. If the believer in Shiva adjusted their view in light of this new evidence, to then believe that, perhaps Shiva can work through other names, I wouldn't see this new view as self-deceit, as again, I think it would be quite rational. It, at least, doesn't invalidate the divine experience.

Whilst I admit I have beliefs, I often like to strip away those beliefs, and focus on what I do know. What is real to me, is that the divine exists, and that I have an active relationship with something divine. The rest, is mere conjecture, including belief in the afterlife, admittedly, though I've found I'm able to cope with that.

hillary_step

Zico,

I'm not really sure I can add much to Leolaia's excellent post.

What was it about this post that you think deals with the issues at hand.

Many thanks - HS

Zico

HS,

"What was it about this post that you think deals with the issues at hand."

At the outset, you said you thought anyone with faith was lying to themselves. I think Leolaia was suggesting there can be a subjective experience to faith which is not a lie.

Self Deceit and Faith.

Share this